From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A50C3A5A3 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CC820656 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Hbi4C4hs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728371AbfH0Usp (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:48:45 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com ([209.85.214.195]:43970 "EHLO mail-pl1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727887AbfH0Uso (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:48:44 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id 4so116719pld.10 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x71Uvmd4BSv+Fh4M3OJi1PCwaPR90IH2aHrOg1rwKRs=; b=Hbi4C4hsGu/WeyWF8XihGNIWFPo7iedshKcxt5Blj49EVUSqVWvkWU6V9HVWsM3cDo 18dFZ+RyMplqptyxqZvJdzCrgyRGjuJSacfIWtZyFEzsg+5ueibG+2wZjcXlCQ9czCyS rRhWxYZFej0s1JaHxtU1iS75vY3ScIQcCMSXApR2jl5bcXHAUewag12qUjXkqrmaIXFB Wx+ARWEZ9gyXjU5OHlS29LIk4/gBjapRpLU2Gqp5kH5XwptjLas6HjHdunfZBihWm0pD jpVhtJur5VDmnvqjojqJSEG6xISrQfPRAqxD77RQ2iXt/w8JlLU/lrqhp+edgBIC1s16 5pCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x71Uvmd4BSv+Fh4M3OJi1PCwaPR90IH2aHrOg1rwKRs=; b=ldbEaU9oCiimDPBDZ0lx3SxsVi4sl3kxLwp22OoYAPpa4jqt4Nm3fZyo5iXQDBYN7l Sdq/YErQzuqarZfPHHRgBf9sXss8xMjgLrmeF1yeohgpDtK8368RHRe+ZQziwQDqzZRU L2fVOIHd6EGoVAobdPn3MqI14INs68P2aJzddfwc+v2F0nn3MutPDOlijCQomkJDwBco CpVxkafwk90nO577PqlWDa1FpKVf3ktfL3WHquet/f5JqxREi2CqULR/fbvXNcVUnBuq 09il8MMHtlQSFbhOomX0V29yPNfGsaug0x9x+PPMvxQSYcmk3zTJLi7g9PbVHkrtzyjw HlNg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6PUcymkUCuHkw8/9uRemiolTP7WdpUfHIfcTlHsSDAePdCgGW B4Trhy2l8WdNWTAtJxBuAbA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyGMBCXYT4UfxpXVChD1XtUeyseN/NENk+4AufaRJtDvNB13ipWIAFHGFhreOJFLgS5oRdKrw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:830c:: with SMTP id bd12mr835218plb.237.1566938924108; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (108-223-40-66.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [108.223.40.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm180710pfy.169.2019.08.27.13.48.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:48:41 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Sasha Levin , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patches potentially missing from stable releases Message-ID: <20190827204841.GA21062@roeck-us.net> References: <20190827171621.GA30360@roeck-us.net> <20190827181003.GR5281@sasha-vm> <20190827200151.GA19618@roeck-us.net> <20190827202901.GB1118@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190827202901.GB1118@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:29:01PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:10:03PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:16:21AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > >I recently wrote a script which identifies patches potentially missing > > > >in downstream kernel branches. The idea is to identify patches backported/ > > > >applied to a downstream branch for which patches tagged with Fixes: are > > > >available in the upstream kernel, but those fixes are missing from the > > > >downstream branch. The script workflow is something like: > > > > > > > >- Identify locally applied patches in downstream branch > > > >- For each patch, identify the matching upstream SHA > > > >- Search the upstream kernel for Fixes: tags with this SHA > > > >- If one or more patches with matching Fixes: tags are found, check > > > > if the patch was applied to the downstream branch. > > > >- If the patch was not applied to the downstream branch, report > > > > > > > >Running this script on chromeos-4.19 identified, not surprisingly, a number > > > >of such patches. However, and more surprisingly, it also identified several > > > >patches applied to v4.19.y for which fixes are available in the upstream > > > >kernel, but those fixes have not been applied to v4.19.y. Some of those > > > >are on the cosmetic side, but several seem to be relevant. I didn't > > > >cross-check all of them, but the ones I tried did apply to linux-4.19.y. > > > >The complete list is attached below. > > > > > > > >Question: Do Sasha's automated scripts identify such patches ? If not, > > > >would it make sense to do it ? Or is there some reason why the patches > > > >have not been applied to v4.19.y ? > > > > > > Hey Guenter, > > > > > > I have a very similar script with a slight difference: I don't try to > > > find just "Fixes:" tags, but rather just any reference from one patch to > > > another. This tends to catch cases where once patch states it's "a > > > similar fix to ..." and such. > > > > > > The tricky part is that it's causing a whole bunch of false positives, > > > which takes a while to weed through - and that's where the issue is > > > right now. > > > > > > > I didn't see any false positives, at least not yet. Would it possibly > > make sense to start with looking at Fixes: ? After all, additional > > references (wich higher chance for false positives) can always be > > searched for later. > > I used to do this "by hand" with a tiny bit of automation, but need to > step it up and do it "correctly" like you did. > > If you have a pointer to your script, I'd be glad to run it here locally > to keep track of this, like I do so for patches tagged with syzbot > issues. > I'd have to rewrite it to work with stable branches. Its current primary goal is to assist the rebase of one chromeos branch to a later upstream kernel release. I just repurposed part of it and use the generated databases to identify patches tagged with Fixes:. I'll be happy to do that and make it work on stable branches in general if you think it would add value. Thanks, Guenter