linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/294] 5.10.215-rc1 review

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, 17 Apr 2024 15:28:04 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
	patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
	jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
	conor@...nel.org, allen.lkml@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	alex.williamson@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
	michael.roth@....com, dsterba@...e.com, aric.cyr@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/294] 5.10.215-rc1 review

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 02:59:16PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.215 release.
> > There are 294 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> 
> > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> >     vfio/pci: Create persistent INTx handler
> 
> This introduces memory leak in vfio_intx_enable() -- name is not freed
> in case vdev->ctx = kzalloc() fails, for example.

So is the upstream commit wrong, or the backport wrong?

> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> >     x86/cpufeatures: Add CPUID_LNX_5 to track recently added Linux-defined word
> 
> AFAICT this is not needed in 5.10.

Why not?

> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> >     objtool: Add asm version of STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD
> 
> Asm version of this macro is not used in 5.10.

It fixed an issue.

> > Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
> >     x86/head/64: Re-enable stack protection
> 
> This is preparation for preparation for SEV-SNP CPUID patches, I don't
> believe we plan that for 6.1.

This is 5.10, not 6.1.

And are you sure that this is not needed?  Remember the x86 speculation
mess that is happening here.

> > David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
> >     btrfs: handle chunk tree lookup error in btrfs_relocate_sys_chunks()
> 
> (This applies to 4.19, too). mutex_unlock() is needed before "goto
> error" here.

So can you provide that fix please?

> > Aric Cyr <aric.cyr@....com>
> >     drm/amd/display: Fix nanosec stat overflow
> 
> (This applies to 4.19, too). This is wrong. It updates prototypes but
> not actual functions.

So should it be dropped or added to 4.19?

confused,

greg k-h