From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A56221F06 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 04:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755835856; cv=none; b=B4/nF+8NVB7BOz4kxcCi54Q39TEGAksPQC1X8gFtyARbByqm8jkuEHkr9IXSKJkx816jfJcajEHy5LWA+jVHseM8QNNeP+80yqB1ivL07UQ8w8SEkEzVTtoG5mLdq6DeDypNctmFnki2Bgwy/ZbvjUJ0PckJJFoO4ARyFwU0ev8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755835856; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VT0fBYlcmQdC9+gRPQFAsjfVP9w+rEuQqyMKfAqu9fk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ey6zXiyTuto9ij79hG+6hz9Js0pl5WHSQvEWscI364HJQAREzTO8CLZwQq5DHv4vCC8deU06yIp4ok7YnaT73lwEudBXGokURHvVUsxmJ1SSdk2Usgi7WXK1WgVcxDT1ffvTIP6rRqA76cqBJyAlKkOxIIWr0lPd1adjshyWnRo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=t7mS0/9R; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="t7mS0/9R" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 836A1C4CEF1; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 04:10:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755835855; bh=VT0fBYlcmQdC9+gRPQFAsjfVP9w+rEuQqyMKfAqu9fk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=t7mS0/9RJtgC3paKsImzOiAzOjLSk8ZWRE7txLzbWig4xS+tfOKkK+cfoLUTNVoxW W2b+Tktu0tA/AYXUPgDw2e+DeyhhbijakmnCjXYoe+ffQKSmLUi0iA2EBxHHDdWQlS bwZf01y3ejB8HchSejZ9GQpkudK+zs60ZFvRV4xVgYf9rPZmuEqy9cUki/MgiPpCiT KmltKs01BcNnQ2wUNgNisunKDwlOqhBGU+fgb6E4XhbPr3BpLSoStMWsRmDAZwjfcd /4nLaxQBwFgPebGCK5sMnwT7PYv8jVBqr45WbFNmnQzJwl7KsU03JiGjqTpTfHON0H RC/GhLYcqwk0g== Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:10:53 -0400 From: Eric Biggers To: Sasha Levin Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12.y 4/4] crypto: x86/aegis - Fix sleeping when disallowed on PREEMPT_RT Message-ID: <20250822041053.GD80178@quark> References: <2025082102-shrug-unused-8ce2@gregkh> <20250822030617.1053172-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20250822030617.1053172-4-sashal@kernel.org> <20250822032304.GA80178@quark> <20250822033951.GB80178@quark> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:56:19PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:39:51PM -0400, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:28:56PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:23:04PM -0400, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:06:17PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > From: Eric Biggers > > > > > > > > > > [ Upstream commit c7f49dadfcdf27e1f747442e874e9baa52ab7674 ] > > > > > > > > > > skcipher_walk_done() can call kfree(), which takes a spinlock, which > > > > > makes it incorrect to call while preemption is disabled on PREEMPT_RT. > > > > > Therefore, end the kernel-mode FPU section before calling > > > > > skcipher_walk_done(), and restart it afterwards. > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, pass atomic=false to skcipher_walk_aead_encrypt() instead of > > > > > atomic=true. The point of atomic=true was to make skcipher_walk_done() > > > > > safe to call while in a kernel-mode FPU section, but that does not > > > > > actually work. So just use the usual atomic=false. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 1d373d4e8e15 ("crypto: x86 - Add optimized AEGIS implementations") > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers > > > > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/x86/crypto/aegis128-aesni-glue.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > 1. Missing Cc of the relevant mailing lists > > > > 2. Missing cover letter > > > > > > This was sent following the instructions in the FAILED: email generated by > > > Greg. If you feel its insufficient, take it up with him. > > > > You're one of the stable maintainers. You can't just deflect and claim > > this is not your problem. > > We perform different parts of the process. I don't send FAILED: mails out, I > don't have control over what Greg sends out. If you feel that the recipient > list is insufficient then Greg should be in the loop - don't take it out on me. > > These mails looked the same for years (decade+?), if for some reason you think > that a cover letter or an expanded cc list would be useful to have, then you > can just suggest it - no need to berate me for not sending one. I've given this same feedback many times already. > > > > 3. Missing base-commit, and doesn't apply to stable/linux-6.16.y > > > > > > As the subject line indicates, this applies on 6.12, not 6.16. > > > > > > > 4. Two different series were sent out, both containing this patch > > > > > > You might have missed that they're for different trees? > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant to write 6.12. 6.12 was indeed what I tried to apply it > > to, and it failed. And there are two series for 6.12, see > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250822030632.1053504-4-sashal@kernel.org > > and > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250822030617.1053172-4-sashal@kernel.org/ > > Yup, those are replies to two different FAILED emails for two different > patches that failed to backport. But why send a separate series for each one, with duplicate patches across the different series? That makes no sense. > Could you share the conflict you've observed? Both series applied cleanly to > stable/linux-6.12.y for me. Try: b4 am https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250822030632.1053504-1-sashal@kernel.org/ It looks like the problem may be that b4 picks up the patch from the FAILED email as a patch in the series. Please make sure that the way you're sending out patch series is compatible with b4, as reviewers often rely on that to download them. - Eric