linux-kernel - Re: Hibernate stuck after recent kernel/workqueue.c changes in Stable 6.6.23

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 05:22:17 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Hibernate stuck after recent kernel/workqueue.c changes in
 Stable 6.6.23

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 07:11:04AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > Side note: I have no idea why the stable team backported those patches
> > and no option on whether that was wise, just trying to help finding the best
> > solution forward from the current state of things.
> 
> The Fixes: tag triggered it, that's why they were backported.
> 
> > > which would
> > > be far too invasive for -stable, thus no Cc: stable.
> > >
> > > I didn't know a Fixes
> > > tag automatically triggers backport to -stable. I will keep that in mind for
> > > future.
> > 
> > /me fears that more and more developers due to situations like this will
> > avoid Fixes: tags and wonders what consequences that might have for the
> > kernel as a whole
> 
> The problem is that we have subsystems that only use Fixes: and not cc:
> stable which is why we need to pick these up as well.  Fixes: is great,
> but if everyone were to do this "properly" then we wouldn't need to pick
> these other ones up, but instead, it's about 1/3 of our volume :(
> 
> I'll gladly revert the above series if they shouldn't have been
> backported to stable, but from reading them, it seemed like they were
> fixing an issue that was serious and should have been added to stable,
> which is why they were.

Oh, yeah, they're fixing an issue. It's just that the issue is relatively
confined peformance degradation and the fix is really invasive, so not a
great -stable candidate. At the very least, they'd need a log longer cooking
time in mainline before being considered for -stable backport.

My intention w/ Fixes: wasn't triggering -stable backport at all, so it's a
miscommunication. From now on, I'll keep in mind that Fixes: does trigger
backports. I'm not too worried about not using it as the fixee commit can be
mentioned in the commit message.

> This is also why we have review cycles, so maintainers can let us know
> if they want us to drop them :)

Heh, sorry about that. This never caused any issues, so I just glide over
the stable mails without thinking.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun