linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.1.y] selftests/mm: Move default_huge_page_size to vm

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: <f1e5a58b-f5a5-4acb-85ea-59a7f43c060f@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 23:35:05 +0800
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, shuah@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1.y] selftests/mm: Move default_huge_page_size to
 vm_util.c



On 2025/10/22 22:26, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 09:34:52PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/10/22 16:20, Greg KH wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> After checking with 'git blame map_hugetlb.c', the issue was introduced
>> by commit a584c7734a4d (“selftests: mm: fix map_hugetlb failure on 64K
>> page size systems”), which corresponds to upstream commit 91b80cc5b39f.
>> This change appears to have caused the build error in the 6.1.y tree.
>>
>> Comparing several stable trees shows the following:
>>
>> - 6.0.y: not backported*
>> - 6.1.y: backported
>> - 6.2.y: not backported*
>> - 6.3.y: not backported*
>> - 6.4.y: not backported*
>> - 6.5.y: not backported*
>> - 6.6.y: backported
>> - 6.7.y: backported
>>
>> Given this, it might be preferable to revert a584c7734a4d in 6.1.y for
>> consistency with the other stable trees (6.0.y, 6.2–6.5.y).
> 
> Ah, yeah, it looks like this commit was reverted from other stable
> releases, as it shows up in the following releases:
> 
> 	4.19.310 4.19.315 5.4.272 5.4.277 5.10.213 5.10.218 5.15.152 5.15.160 6.1.82 6.6.18 6.7.6
> 
> So a revert would be fine, want to submit it?
> 

Got it. I'll send a patch to revert it later.

Thanks,
Leon