Re: [PATCH 5.7 000/121] 5.7.13-rc2 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 12:19:58PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-08-05 10:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 10:23:06PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On 2020-08-04 19:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:21 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So Linus's tree is also broken here.
> > > >
> > > > No, there's 835d1c3a9879 ("arm64: Drop unnecessary include from
> > > > asm/smp.h") upstream.
> > > 
> > > My bet is that Greg ended up with this patch backported to
> > > 5.7, but doesn't have 62a679cb2825 ("arm64: simplify ptrauth
> > > initialization") as the latter isn't a fix.
> > > 
> > > I don't think any of these two patches are worth backporting,
> > > to be honest.
> > 
> > I didn't have either of those patches, so I can try applying them to see
> > if the build errors go away.  But if you don't think they should be
> > applied, what should I do?
> > 
> > Here's what I did have queued up:
> > 
> > f227e3ec3b5c ("random32: update the net random state on interrupt and
> > activity")
> > aa54ea903abb ("ARM: percpu.h: fix build error")
> > 1c9df907da83 ("random: fix circular include dependency on arm64 after
> > addition of percpu.h")
> > 83bdc7275e62 ("random32: remove net_rand_state from the latent entropy
> > gcc plugin")
> > c0842fbc1b18 ("random32: move the pseudo-random 32-bit definitions to
> > prandom.h")
> 
> Not what I expected, then. I stand corrected.
> 
> > And that caused the builds to blow up.
> > 
> > So, what should I do here?
> 
> OK, this is getting hairy. I solved it by grabbing:
> 
> d0055da5266a ("arm64: remove ptrauth_keys_install_kernel sync arg")
> 62a679cb2825 ("arm64: simplify ptrauth initialization")
> 
> and at which point you might as well take 835d1c3a9879 despite
> everything I said earlier. And backporting that further down the
> line is fraught with danger.
> 
> I came up with yet another "quality" hack, which gets the job done,
> see below. It is obviously much simpler, but also terribly ugly.

I like it :)

I've taken it for 5.7.y, and modified it a bit for 5.4.y, and don't
think it's needed on anything older, but let's see what blows up...

thanks!

greg k-h