Message-ID: <7442B6FD-6EC6-4C4E-A5F7-CDA1174E6DE2@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:40:57 +0000
From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-stable
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev"
	<patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds
	<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "patches@...nelci.org"
	<patches@...nelci.org>,
        "lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org"
	<lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org>,
        "pavel@...x.de" <pavel@...x.de>,
        "jonathanh@...dia.com" <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com"
	<f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com"
	<sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        "srw@...dewatkins.net" <srw@...dewatkins.net>,
        "rwarsow@....de" <rwarsow@....de>,
        "conor@...nel.org" <conor@...nel.org>,
        "allen.lkml@...il.com" <allen.lkml@...il.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org"
	<broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/770] 5.10.220-rc1 review



> On Jun 25, 2024, at 3:35 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> 
> On 6/25/24 12:08, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 2024, at 12:29 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 6/25/24 08:13, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>>> Hi -
>>>>> On Jun 25, 2024, at 11:04 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:48:00AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/24 05:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.220 release.
>>>>>>> There are 770 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Responses should be made by Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:32:00 +0000.
>>>>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>> Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
>>>>>>>     SUNRPC: Prepare for xdr_stream-style decoding on the server-side
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The ChromeOS patches robot reports a number of fixes for the patches
>>>>>> applied in 5.5.220. This is one example, later fixed with commit
>>>>>> 90bfc37b5ab9 ("SUNRPC: Fix svcxdr_init_decode's end-of-buffer
>>>>>> calculation"), but there are more. Are those fixes going to be
>>>>>> applied in a subsequent release of v5.10.y, was there a reason to
>>>>>> not include them, or did they get lost ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I saw this as well, but when I tried to apply a few, they didn't, so I
>>>>> was guessing that Chuck had merged them together into the series.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'll defer to Chuck on this, this release was all his :)
>>>> I did this port months ago, I've been waiting for the dust to
>>>> settle on the 6.1 and 5.15 NFSD backports, so I've all but
>>>> forgotten the status of individual patches.
>>>> If you (Greg or Guenter) send me a list of what you believe is
>>>> missing, I can have a look at the individual cases and then
>>>> run the finished result through our NFSD CI gauntlet.
>>> 
>>> This is what the robot reported so far:
>>> 
>>> 1242a87da0d8 SUNRPC: Fix svcxdr_init_encode's buflen calculation
>>>  Fixes: bddfdbcddbe2 ("NFSD: Extract the svcxdr_init_encode() helper")
>>> 90bfc37b5ab9 SUNRPC: Fix svcxdr_init_decode's end-of-buffer calculation
>>>  Fixes: 5191955d6fc6 ("SUNRPC: Prepare for xdr_stream-style decoding on the server-side")
>>> 10396f4df8b7 nfsd: hold a lighter-weight client reference over CB_RECALL_ANY
>>>  Fixes: 44df6f439a17 ("NFSD: add delegation reaper to react to low memory condition")
>> My naive search found:
>> Checking commit 44df6f439a17 ...
>>   upstream fix 10396f4df8b75ff6ab0aa2cd74296565466f2c8d not found
>> 10396f4df8b75ff6ab0aa2cd74296565466f2c8d nfsd: hold a lighter-weight client reference over CB_RECALL_ANY
>>   upstream fix f385f7d244134246f984975ed34cd75f77de479f is already applied
>> Checking commit a2071573d634 ...
>>   upstream fix f1aa2eb5ea05ccd1fd92d235346e60e90a1ed949 not found
>> f1aa2eb5ea05ccd1fd92d235346e60e90a1ed949 sysctl: fix proc_dobool() usability
>> Checking commit bddfdbcddbe2 ...
>>   upstream fix 1242a87da0d8cd2a428e96ca68e7ea899b0f4624 not found
>> 1242a87da0d8cd2a428e96ca68e7ea899b0f4624 SUNRPC: Fix svcxdr_init_encode's buflen calculation
>> Checking commit 9fe61450972d ...     upstream fix 2111c3c0124f7432fe908c036a50abe8733dbf38 not found
>> 2111c3c0124f7432fe908c036a50abe8733dbf38 namei: fix kernel-doc for struct renamedata and more
>> Checking commit 013c1667cf78 ...     upstream fix 2c0f0f3639562d6e38ee9705303c6457c4936eac not found
>> 2c0f0f3639562d6e38ee9705303c6457c4936eac module: correctly exit module_kallsyms_on_each_symbol when fn() != 0
>>   upstream fix 1e80d9cb579ed7edd121753eeccce82ff82521b4 not found
>> 1e80d9cb579ed7edd121753eeccce82ff82521b4 module: potential uninitialized return in module_kallsyms_on_each_symbol()
>> Checking commit 89ff87494c6e ...
>>   upstream fix 5c11720767f70d34357d00a15ba5a0ad052c40fe not found
>> 5c11720767f70d34357d00a15ba5a0ad052c40fe SUNRPC: Fix a NULL pointer deref in trace_svc_stats_latency()
>> Checking commit 5191955d6fc6 ...
>>   upstream fix 90bfc37b5ab91c1a6165e3e5cfc49bf04571b762 not found
>> 90bfc37b5ab91c1a6165e3e5cfc49bf04571b762 SUNRPC: Fix svcxdr_init_decode's end-of-buffer calculation
>>   upstream fix b9f83ffaa0c096b4c832a43964fe6bff3acffe10 not found
>> b9f83ffaa0c096b4c832a43964fe6bff3acffe10 SUNRPC: Fix null pointer dereference in svc_rqst_free()
>> I'll look into backporting the missing NFSD and SUNRPC patches.
> 
> My list didn't include patches with conflicts. There are a lot of them. Our robot
> collects those, but doesn't focus on it. It also doesn't analyze just nfds/SUNRPC
> patches, but all of them. I started an analysis to list all the fixes with
> conflicts; so far I found about 100 of them. Three are tagged SUNRPC.
> 
> Upstream commit 8e088a20dbe3 ("SUNRPC: add a missing rpc_stat for TCP TLS")
>  upstream: v6.9-rc7
>    Fixes: 1548036ef120 ("nfs: make the rpc_stat per net namespace")
>      in linux-5.4.y: 19f51adc778f
>      in linux-5.10.y: afdbc21a92a0
>      in linux-5.15.y: 7ceb89f4016e
>      in linux-6.1.y: 2b7f2d663a96
>      in linux-6.6.y: 260333221cf0
>      upstream: v6.9-rc1
>    Affected branches:
>      linux-5.4.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-5.10.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-5.15.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-6.1.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-6.6.y (already applied)
> 
> Upstream commit aed28b7a2d62 ("SUNRPC: Don't dereference xprt->snd_task if it's a cookie")
>  upstream: v5.17-rc2
>    Fixes: e26d9972720e ("SUNRPC: Clean up scheduling of autoclose")
>      in linux-5.4.y: 2d6f096476e6
>      in linux-5.10.y: 2ab569edd883
>      upstream: v5.15-rc1
>    Affected branches:
>      linux-5.4.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-5.10.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-5.15.y (already applied)
> 
> Upstream commit aad41a7d7cf6 ("SUNRPC: Don't leak sockets in xs_local_connect()")
>  upstream: v5.18-rc6
>    Fixes: f00432063db1 ("SUNRPC: Ensure we flush any closed sockets before xs_xprt_free()")
>      in linux-5.4.y: 2f8f6c393b11
>      in linux-5.10.y: e68b60ae29de
>      in linux-5.15.y: 54f6834b283d
>      upstream: v5.18-rc2
>    Affected branches:
>      linux-5.4.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-5.10.y (conflicts - backport needed)
>      linux-5.15.y (conflicts - backport needed)
> 
> I'll send a complete list after the analysis is done.

The "NFSD file cache fixes" backports focused on NFSD, not on
SUNRPC, and only the NFS server side of affairs. The missing
fixes you found are outside of one or both of those areas, so
they can go through the usual stable backport process if the
NFS client folks care to do that.


--
Chuck Lever

Powered by blists - more mailing lists