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: <87cyhdp7fx.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:43:46 +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 13:34:52 +0000,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 01:23:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> So should I drop something?  Revert it?  Add a new commit?  What is
> going to help solve the issue that we now have selftests failing?

There is nothing to add, as the fix for the selftest isn't upstream
yet. If you are that bothered about an utterly pointless test failing,
feel free to drop the backport of this patch and leave 6.12 being
broken.

	M.

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