linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.12 00/55] 6.12.32-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025060419-duchess-rehab-2d6e@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc: 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, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
	conor@...nel.org, hargar@...rosoft.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12 00/55] 6.12.32-rc1 review

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 11:22:53AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 04/06/2025 11:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > > 
> > > On 04/06/2025 10:41, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:47:17 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.32 release.
> > > > > There are 55 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 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:42:20 +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-6.12.32-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
> > > > 
> > > > Failures detected for Tegra ...
> > > > 
> > > > Test results for stable-v6.12:
> > > >       10 builds:	10 pass, 0 fail
> > > >       28 boots:	28 pass, 0 fail
> > > >       116 tests:	115 pass, 1 fail
> > > > 
> > > > Linux version:	6.12.32-rc1-gce2ebbe0294c
> > > > Boards tested:	tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000,
> > > >                   tegra186-p3509-0000+p3636-0001, tegra194-p2972-0000,
> > > >                   tegra194-p3509-0000+p3668-0000, tegra20-ventana,
> > > >                   tegra210-p2371-2180, tegra210-p3450-0000,
> > > >                   tegra30-cardhu-a04
> > > > 
> > > > Test failures:	tegra186-p2771-0000: pm-system-suspend.sh
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have been looking at this and this appears to be an intermittent failure
> > > that has crept in. Bisect is point to the following change which landed in
> > > v6.12.31 and we did not catch it ...
> > > 
> > > # first bad commit: [d95fdee2253e612216e72f29c65b92ec42d254eb] cpufreq:
> > > tegra186: Share policy per cluster
> > > 
> > > I have tested v6.15 which has this change and I don't see the same issue
> > > there. I have also tested v6.6.y because this was backported to the various
> > > stable branches and I don't see any problems there. Only v6.12.y appears to
> > > be impacted which is odd (although this test only runs on v6.6+ kernels for
> > > this board). However, the testing is conclusive that this change is a
> > > problem for v6.12.y.
> > > 
> > > So I think we do need to revert the above change for v6.12.y but I am not
> > > sure if it makes sense to revert for earlier stable branches too?
> > 
> > Yes, let's revert it for the older ones as well as it would look odd,
> > and our tools might notice that we had "skipped" a stable release tree.
> > 
> > Can you send the revert or do you need us to?
> 
> I can no problem. Do you need a revert for each stable branch or just one
> email with the commit to revert for each stable branch?

Which ever is easier for you, I can handle the git id "fixups" when
applying them to the different branches if you don't want to have to dig
for them.

thanks,

greg k-h