Re: [ANNOUNCE] 5.10.162-rt78

["Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 04:09:44PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/19/23 2:03?PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi Luis, all,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:16:34AM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:38:25PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>>>> I'm pleased to announce the 5.10.162-rt78 stable release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can get this release via the git tree at:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-stable-rt.git
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   branch: v5.10-rt
> >>>>>   Head SHA1: 143ef105f40a65f3ddd57121d4b4bc36eb10cc06
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or to build 5.10.162-rt78 directly, the following patches should be applied:
> >>>
> >>>> I see that vanilla 5.10.162-rt78 fails to build with arm64 defconfig. [0] Full log [1]
> >>>> Any pointers on what maybe wrong?
> >>>
> >>> We see the same failure. 
> >>>
> >>>>   AS      arch/arm64/kernel/entry.o
> >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S: Assembler messages:
> >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:763: Error: immediate out of range at operand 3 -- `and x2,x19,#((1<<1)|(1<<0)|(1<<2)|(1<<3)|(1<<4)|(1<<5)|(1<<6)|(1<<13)|(1<<7))'
> >>>> make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:367: arch/arm64/kernel/entry.o] Error 1
> >>>> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:503: arch/arm64/kernel] Error 2
> >>>> make: *** [Makefile:1837: arch/arm64] Error 2
> >>>
> >>> The line is:
> >>>
> >>>>        and     x2, x19, #_TIF_WORK_MASK
> >>
> >> I believe this is related to the arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> >> changes in 5.10.162-rt78, specifically:
> >>
> >>     79a9991e87fe arm64: add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
> >>     1ba44dcf789d Merge tag 'v5.10.162' into v5.10-rt
> >>
> >> The first one is the original change, coming from stable v5.10.162 and the
> >> second one has the merge conflict I fixed in that file due to the existence
> >> of TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY in PREEMPT_RT.
> >>
> >> It escaped me that having TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY set to 13 breaks the AND
> >> statement reported above. Looking at
> >>
> >>     b5a5a01d8e9a arm64: uaccess: remove addr_limit_user_check()
> >>
> >> specially this note
> >>
> >>     To ensure that _TIF_WORK_MASK can be used as an immediate value in an
> >>     AND instruction (as it is in `ret_to_user`), TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT is
> >>     renumbered to keep the constituent bits of _TIF_WORK_MASK contiguous.
> >>
> >> I understand that I need to either have to renumber TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY
> >> to 8, with the risk of breaking something else, or backport commit
> >> b5a5a01d8e9a in order to remove TIF_FSCHECK and then safely renumber
> >> TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY.
> >>
> >> Guidance is welcome here :)
> > 
> > Should we loop in here Jens, as having some overview of the needed
> > changes for io_uring rebase in the 5.10.y version? (doing so in the
> > mail).
> 
> Huh that's funky, I built and (runtime) tested this on arm64
> specifically. But I do remember some details about the first 8 bits on
> arm, but not arm64.
> 
> I guess we need to twiddle that asm to deal with eg 16 bits, rather than
> attempt to backport any TIF removal patches.

One simple solution, tested with defconfig plus FTRACE options (including
FTRACE_SYSCALLS) enabled, is:

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
index 6eb36a2126e8..37f19bb49d38 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
@@ -70,12 +70,12 @@ void arch_release_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk);
 #define TIF_FSCHECK		5	/* Check FS is USER_DS on return */
 #define TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT	6	/* MTE Asynchronous Tag Check Fault */
 #define TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL	7	/* signal notifications exist */
-#define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE	8	/* syscall trace active */
+#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY	8
 #define TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT	9	/* syscall auditing */
 #define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT	10	/* syscall tracepoint for ftrace */
 #define TIF_SECCOMP		11	/* syscall secure computing */
 #define TIF_SYSCALL_EMU		12	/* syscall emulation active */
-#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY	13
+#define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE	13	/* syscall trace active */
 #define TIF_MEMDIE		18	/* is terminating due to OOM killer */
 #define TIF_FREEZE		19
 #define TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK	20

Would that be acceptable? With that we ensure the bits in _TIF_WORK_MASK
are contiguous and within the 8 bits limit you mentioned. And TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
did not seem to have any (build) problem with the new value.

Luis

> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 
---end quoted text---