* Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review
2023-08-25 7:05 ` [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review Naresh Kamboju
@ 2023-08-25 7:15 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
2023-08-25 7:45 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-25 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Harshit Mogalapalli @ 2023-08-25 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naresh Kamboju, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Christian Brauner,
Jeff Layton, Chuck Lever, linux-nfs
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, Sherry Yang, LTP List,
Vegard Nossum
Hi,
On 25/08/23 12:35 pm, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> + linux-nfs and more
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
>> There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
>
> Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> the functionality and found that it was a failure.
>
> This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> Test log:
> --------
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
> expected 0102700
>
Note:
These both test cases are failing in 5.15.128 as well.
>
> ## Build
> * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
> * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
> * git branch: linux-6.1.y
> * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
> * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> * test details:
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
>
> ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
>
>
>
> Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
>
> I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
>
> the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.
>
>
> ----
>
> nfsd: use vfs setgid helper
> commit 2d8ae8c417db284f598dffb178cc01e7db0f1821 upstream.
>
> We've aligned setgid behavior over multiple kernel releases. The details
> can be found in commit cf619f891971 ("Merge tag 'fs.ovl.setgid.v6.2' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/idmapping") and
> commit 426b4ca2d6a5 ("Merge tag 'fs.setgid.v6.0' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux").
> Consistent setgid stripping behavior is now encapsulated in the
> setattr_should_drop_sgid() helper which is used by all filesystems that
> strip setgid bits outside of vfs proper. Usually ATTR_KILL_SGID is
> raised in e.g., chown_common() and is subject to the
> setattr_should_drop_sgid() check to determine whether the setgid bit can
> be retained. Since nfsd is raising ATTR_KILL_SGID unconditionally it
> will cause notify_change() to strip it even if the caller had the
> necessary privileges to retain it. Ensure that nfsd only raises
> ATR_KILL_SGID if the caller lacks the necessary privileges to retain the
> setgid bit.
>
> Without this patch the setgid stripping tests in LTP will fail:
>
>> As you can see, the problem is S_ISGID (0002000) was dropped on a
>> non-group-executable file while chown was invoked by super-user, while
>
> [...]
>
>> fchown02.c:66: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> [...]
>
>> chown02.c:57: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> With this patch all tests pass.
>
> Reported-by: Sherry Yang <sherry.yang@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230502-agenda-regeln-04d2573bd0fd@brauner/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202210091600.dbe52cbf-yujie.liu@intel.com/
> --
> Linaro LKFT
> https://lkft.linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review
2023-08-25 7:05 ` [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review Naresh Kamboju
2023-08-25 7:15 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
@ 2023-08-25 7:45 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-25 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Christian Brauner @ 2023-08-25 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naresh Kamboju
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Jeff Layton, Chuck Lever, linux-nfs, stable,
patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, Sherry Yang, LTP List, Amir Goldstein
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> + linux-nfs and more
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
>
> Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> the functionality and found that it was a failure.
>
> This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> Test log:
> --------
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
> expected 0102700
>
>
> ## Build
> * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
> * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
> * git branch: linux-6.1.y
> * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
> * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> * test details:
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
>
> ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
>
>
>
> Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
>
> I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
>
> the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.
s/above/below/?
All setgid related infrastructure and fixes have been backported to all
LTSes. This one is needed for nfsd so yes, it should also be backported.
>
>
> ----
>
> nfsd: use vfs setgid helper
> commit 2d8ae8c417db284f598dffb178cc01e7db0f1821 upstream.
>
> We've aligned setgid behavior over multiple kernel releases. The details
> can be found in commit cf619f891971 ("Merge tag 'fs.ovl.setgid.v6.2' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/idmapping") and
> commit 426b4ca2d6a5 ("Merge tag 'fs.setgid.v6.0' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux").
> Consistent setgid stripping behavior is now encapsulated in the
> setattr_should_drop_sgid() helper which is used by all filesystems that
> strip setgid bits outside of vfs proper. Usually ATTR_KILL_SGID is
> raised in e.g., chown_common() and is subject to the
> setattr_should_drop_sgid() check to determine whether the setgid bit can
> be retained. Since nfsd is raising ATTR_KILL_SGID unconditionally it
> will cause notify_change() to strip it even if the caller had the
> necessary privileges to retain it. Ensure that nfsd only raises
> ATR_KILL_SGID if the caller lacks the necessary privileges to retain the
> setgid bit.
>
> Without this patch the setgid stripping tests in LTP will fail:
>
> > As you can see, the problem is S_ISGID (0002000) was dropped on a
> > non-group-executable file while chown was invoked by super-user, while
>
> [...]
>
> > fchown02.c:66: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> [...]
>
> > chown02.c:57: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> With this patch all tests pass.
>
> Reported-by: Sherry Yang <sherry.yang@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230502-agenda-regeln-04d2573bd0fd@brauner/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202210091600.dbe52cbf-yujie.liu@intel.com/
> --
> Linaro LKFT
> https://lkft.linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review
2023-08-25 7:05 ` [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review Naresh Kamboju
2023-08-25 7:15 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
2023-08-25 7:45 ` Christian Brauner
@ 2023-08-25 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-08-25 8:48 ` Naresh Kamboju
2023-08-25 9:33 ` Naresh Kamboju
2 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2023-08-25 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naresh Kamboju
Cc: Christian Brauner, Jeff Layton, Chuck Lever, linux-nfs, stable,
patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, Sherry Yang, LTP List
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> + linux-nfs and more
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
>
> Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> the functionality and found that it was a failure.
>
> This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
previous ones somehow?
> Test log:
> --------
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
> chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
> fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
> expected 0102700
>
>
> ## Build
> * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
> * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
> * git branch: linux-6.1.y
> * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
> * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> * test details:
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
>
> ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
> - chown02
> - fchown02
>
>
>
>
> Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
>
> I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
>
> the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.
What "above commit"?
And what commit should be backported?
confused,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review
2023-08-25 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2023-08-25 8:48 ` Naresh Kamboju
2023-08-25 16:29 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
2023-08-25 9:33 ` Naresh Kamboju
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2023-08-25 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Christian Brauner, Jeff Layton, Chuck Lever, linux-nfs, stable,
patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, Sherry Yang, LTP List
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > + linux-nfs and more
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> > Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> > chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> > the functionality and found that it was a failure.
> >
> > This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> > into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
> previous ones somehow?
>
> > Test log:
> > --------
> > chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
> > chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
> > chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
> >
> > fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
> > fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
> > fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
> > expected 0102700
> >
> >
> > ## Build
> > * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
> > * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
> > * git branch: linux-6.1.y
> > * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
> > * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> > * test details:
> > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> >
> > ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
> > * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
> > - chown02
> > - fchown02
> >
> > * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
> > - chown02
> > - fchown02
> >
> > * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
> > - chown02
> > - fchown02
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
> >
> > I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
> >
> > the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.
>
> What "above commit"?
Sorry, s/above/below/
I copied that from another email thread as it is.
>
> And what commit should be backported?
nfsd: use vfs setgid helper
commit 2d8ae8c417db284f598dffb178cc01e7db0f1821 upstream.
Please refer this link,
- https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230502-agenda-regeln-04d2573bd0fd@brauner/
>
> confused,
>
> greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review
2023-08-25 8:48 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2023-08-25 16:29 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Harshit Mogalapalli @ 2023-08-25 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: Naresh Kamboju, Christian Brauner, Jeff Layton, Chuck Lever,
linux-nfs, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, Sherry Yang, LTP List,
Darren Kenny, Vegard Nossum, Harshit Mogalapalli
Hi
On 25/08/23 2:18 pm, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>> + linux-nfs and more
>>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
>>>> There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
>>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>>
>>> Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
>>> Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
>>> chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
>>> the functionality and found that it was a failure.
>>>
>>> This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
>>> into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>>
>> Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
>> previous ones somehow?
>>
>>> Test log:
>>> --------
>>> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
>>> chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
>>> chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
>>>
>>> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
>>> fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
>>> fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
>>> expected 0102700
>>>
>>>
>>> ## Build
>>> * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
>>> * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
>>> * git branch: linux-6.1.y
>>> * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
>>> * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
>>> * test details:
>>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
>>>
>>> ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
>>> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
>>> - chown02
>>> - fchown02
>>>
>>> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
>>> - chown02
>>> - fchown02
>>>
>>> * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
>>> - chown02
>>> - fchown02
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
>>>
>>> I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
>>>
>>> the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.
>>
>> What "above commit"?
>
> Sorry, s/above/below/
> I copied that from another email thread as it is.
>
>>
>> And what commit should be backported?
>
>
> nfsd: use vfs setgid helper
> commit 2d8ae8c417db284f598dffb178cc01e7db0f1821 upstream.
>
I have tried backporting this on 6.1.y and 5.15.y.
Here are the backports. (note: I would like to have them reviewed)
6.1.y:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230825161603.371792-1-harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com/
5.15.y:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230825161901.371818-1-harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com/
Thanks,
Harshit
> Please refer this link,
> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230502-agenda-regeln-04d2573bd0fd@brauner/
>
>
>>
>> confused,
>>
>> greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review
2023-08-25 8:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-08-25 8:48 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2023-08-25 9:33 ` Naresh Kamboju
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2023-08-25 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Christian Brauner, Jeff Layton, Chuck Lever, linux-nfs, stable,
patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, Sherry Yang, LTP List
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > + linux-nfs and more
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +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-6.1.48-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-6.1.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> > Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> > chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> > the functionality and found that it was a failure.
> >
> > This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> > into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
> previous ones somehow?
I have re-tested with newers and older versions of the kernel and here
I confirm that this is not a regression from this round of stable rc review.
We have made a couple of changes to our infrastructure and are investigating
the root cause of these two test cases failures.
- Naresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread