linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/160] 6.12.7-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]

Message-ID: <87ed1tp8df.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:23:40 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,	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,	pavel@...x.de,	jonathanh@...dia.com,	f.fainelli@...il.com,	sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,	srw@...dewatkins.net,	rwarsow@....de,	conor@...nel.org,	hargar@...rosoft.com,	broonie@...nel.org,	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/160] 6.12.7-rc1 review

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:04:11 +0000,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 01:41:41PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:12:40 +0000,
> > Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 21:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.7 release.
> > > > There are 160 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 Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:53:30 +0000.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > >
> > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > > >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.12.7-rc1.gz
> > > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.12.y
> > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > 
> > > The following test regressions found on arm64 selftests
> > > kvm kvm_set_id_regs.
> > > 
> > > This was reported and fixed by a patch [1].
> > > 
> > > * graviton4-metal, kselftest-kvm
> > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > 
> > > * rk3399-rock-pi-4b-nvhe, kselftest-kvm
> > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > 
> > > * rk3399-rock-pi-4b-protected, kselftest-kvm
> > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > 
> > > * rk3399-rock-pi-4b-vhe, kselftest-kvm
> > >   - kvm_set_id_regs
> > > 
> > >  Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> > 
> > This is totally harmless, and if anything, indicates that the *fix*
> > is doing its job, and that this patch *must* be backported.

I think I caused the confusion here, as "this patch" refers to the
original fix which has been queued, rather than the patch to the
selftest, which I don't consider a candidate for backports.

> Ok, but for some bizare reason someone stripped OFF the Fixes: tag,

"Someone" == we, the KVM/arm64 maintainers.

And that's on purpose. A selftest patch doesn't fix anything, and I
really don't want to use the "Fixes:" tag as a type of dependency.
Additionally, these tests are mostly pointless anyway, specially this
one, which really should be deleted.

> which causes this problem to now show up.  Hopefully that will not
> happen again in the future, but now I don't know what the git id is in
> Linus's tree to be able to apply here.
> 
> So, what do I do now?

Nothing, apart from applying the original fix, and blissfully ignoring
the selftest, unless someone really want to backport it (I don't).

Thanks, and sorry for the confusion.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.