* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2023-10-09 18:44 ` SeongJae Park
2023-10-09 20:43 ` Naresh Kamboju
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: SeongJae Park @ 2023-10-09 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, damon, SeongJae Park
Hello,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:59:41 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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.
This rc kernel passes DAMON functionality test[1] on my test machine.
Attaching the test results summary below. Please note that I retrieved the
kernel from linux-stable-rc tree[2].
Tested-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
[1] https://github.com/awslabs/damon-tests/tree/next/corr
[2] 282079f8e407 ("Linux 6.1.57-rc1")
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
---
ok 1 selftests: damon: debugfs_attrs.sh
ok 2 selftests: damon: debugfs_schemes.sh
ok 3 selftests: damon: debugfs_target_ids.sh
ok 4 selftests: damon: debugfs_empty_targets.sh
ok 5 selftests: damon: debugfs_huge_count_read_write.sh
ok 6 selftests: damon: debugfs_duplicate_context_creation.sh
ok 7 selftests: damon: sysfs.sh
ok 1 selftests: damon-tests: kunit.sh
ok 2 selftests: damon-tests: huge_count_read_write.sh
ok 3 selftests: damon-tests: buffer_overflow.sh
ok 4 selftests: damon-tests: rm_contexts.sh
ok 5 selftests: damon-tests: record_null_deref.sh
ok 6 selftests: damon-tests: dbgfs_target_ids_read_before_terminate_race.sh
ok 7 selftests: damon-tests: dbgfs_target_ids_pid_leak.sh
ok 8 selftests: damon-tests: damo_tests.sh
ok 9 selftests: damon-tests: masim-record.sh
ok 10 selftests: damon-tests: build_i386.sh
ok 11 selftests: damon-tests: build_arm64.sh
ok 12 selftests: damon-tests: build_i386_idle_flag.sh
ok 13 selftests: damon-tests: build_i386_highpte.sh
ok 14 selftests: damon-tests: build_nomemcg.sh
[33m
[92mPASS [39m
_remote_run_corr.sh SUCCESS
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-10-09 18:44 ` SeongJae Park
@ 2023-10-09 20:43 ` Naresh Kamboju
2023-10-10 16:51 ` Matthieu Baerts
2023-10-09 22:49 ` Shuah Khan
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2023-10-09 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, David S. Miller,
David Ahern, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Netdev,
bpf, MPTCP Upstream
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 18:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
The following kernel warnings were noticed several times on arm x15 devices
running stable-rc 6.1.57-rc1 while running selftests: net: mptcp_connect.sh
and netfilter: nft_fib.sh.
The possible unsafe locking scenario detected.
FYI,
Stable-rc/ linux.6.1.y kernel running stable/ linux.6.5.y selftest in this case.
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
kselftest: Running tests in net/mptcp
TAP version 13
1..7
# timeout set to 1200
# selftests: net/mptcp: mptcp_connect.sh
[ 80.093261] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): ns1eth2: link becomes ready
[ 80.449707] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): ns2eth3: link becomes ready
[ 80.770538] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): ns2eth1: link becomes ready
[ 80.826141] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): ns4eth3: link becomes ready
[ 80.833465] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): ns3eth4: link becomes ready
# INFO: set ns4-64ac7c08-UbLqmM dev ns4eth3: ethtool -K gso off
# Created /tmp/tmp.de3ILrgEEm (size 375836 /tmp/tmp.de3ILrgEEm)
containing data sent by client
# Created /tmp/tmp.YGH83JN29o (size 8315932 /tmp/tmp.YGH83JN29o)
containing data sent by server
# New MPTCP socket can be blocked via sysctl [ OK ]
# INFO: validating network environment with pings
[ 82.468353]
[ 82.469848] ================================
[ 82.474151] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 82.478454] 6.1.57-rc1 #1 Not tainted
[ 82.482116] --------------------------------
[ 82.486419] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-R} usage.
[ 82.492431] ping/1924 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
[ 82.497436] c9a58224 (&n->lock){++-?}-{2:2}, at: rt6_score_route+0xd8/0x1e0
[ 82.504455] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
[ 82.509368] _raw_write_lock_bh+0x48/0x58
[ 82.513488] __neigh_update+0x74/0xe48
[ 82.517333] neigh_update+0x24/0x2c
[ 82.520935] ndisc_rcv+0x4c4/0x1440
[ 82.524536] icmpv6_rcv+0x604/0x810
[ 82.528137] ip6_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x9c/0x9ac
[ 82.532867] ip6_input_finish+0xa0/0x18c
[ 82.536895] ip6_mc_input+0x148/0x3d0
[ 82.540679] __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x58/0x74
[ 82.545654] process_backlog+0x138/0x300
[ 82.549713] __napi_poll+0x34/0x258
[ 82.553283] net_rx_action+0x160/0x350
[ 82.557159] __do_softirq+0x1b8/0x4dc
[ 82.560913] call_with_stack+0x18/0x20
[ 82.564788] do_softirq+0xb0/0xb4
[ 82.568206] __local_bh_enable_ip+0x180/0x1b8
[ 82.572662] __dev_queue_xmit+0x3bc/0x12d0
[ 82.576873] ip6_finish_output2+0x178/0xb80
[ 82.581176] ip6_finish_output+0x1c8/0x48c
[ 82.585388] ndisc_send_skb+0x4d8/0x8c0
[ 82.589324] addrconf_dad_completed+0xd8/0x3b0
[ 82.593872] addrconf_dad_work+0x208/0x56c
[ 82.598083] process_one_work+0x26c/0x6a0
[ 82.602203] worker_thread+0x60/0x4e8
[ 82.605987] kthread+0xfc/0x11c
[ 82.609222] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x28
[ 82.612915] irq event stamp: 18041
[ 82.616333] hardirqs last enabled at (18041): [<c035a990>]
__local_bh_enable_ip+0xcc/0x1b8
[ 82.624725] hardirqs last disabled at (18039): [<c035aa0c>]
__local_bh_enable_ip+0x148/0x1b8
[ 82.633178] softirqs last enabled at (18040): [<c14fc510>]
ip6_datagram_connect+0x20/0x44
[ 82.641510] softirqs last disabled at (18038): [<c1306cc8>]
lock_sock_nested+0x4c/0x7c
[ 82.649475]
[ 82.649475] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 82.656036] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 82.656036]
[ 82.661956] CPU0
[ 82.664428] ----
[ 82.666870] lock(&n->lock);
[ 82.669860] <Interrupt>
[ 82.672485] lock(&n->lock);
[ 82.675659]
[ 82.675659] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 82.675659]
[ 82.681610] 4 locks held by ping/1924:
[ 82.685363] #0: c9ab0110 (sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
ip6_datagram_connect+0x20/0x44
[ 82.693878] #1: c24a62f8 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
ip6_route_output_flags+0x0/0x1f4
[ 82.702301] #2: c24a62f8 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
ip6_pol_route+0x60/0x718
[ 82.709991] #3: c24a62f8 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
rt6_score_route+0x78/0x1e0
[ 82.717895]
[ 82.717895] stack backtrace:
[ 82.722259] CPU: 1 PID: 1924 Comm: ping Not tainted 6.1.57-rc1 #1
[ 82.728393] Hardware name: Generic DRA74X (Flattened Device Tree)
[ 82.734527] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
[ 82.739776] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x58/0x70
[ 82.744873] dump_stack_lvl from mark_lock.part.0+0xb74/0x128c
[ 82.750732] mark_lock.part.0 from __lock_acquire+0x3d8/0x2aa4
[ 82.756591] __lock_acquire from lock_acquire+0x110/0x334
[ 82.762023] lock_acquire from _raw_read_lock+0x64/0x74
[ 82.767272] _raw_read_lock from rt6_score_route+0xd8/0x1e0
[ 82.772888] rt6_score_route from find_match.part.0+0x6c/0x4d4
[ 82.778747] find_match.part.0 from __find_rr_leaf+0xb8/0x430
[ 82.784515] __find_rr_leaf from fib6_table_lookup+0x234/0x46c
[ 82.790405] fib6_table_lookup from ip6_pol_route+0xd0/0x718
[ 82.796081] ip6_pol_route from ip6_pol_route_output+0x2c/0x34
[ 82.801940] ip6_pol_route_output from fib6_rule_lookup+0xb4/0x1e4
[ 82.808166] fib6_rule_lookup from ip6_route_output_flags_noref+0xbc/0x110
[ 82.815063] ip6_route_output_flags_noref from
ip6_route_output_flags+0x78/0x1f4
[ 82.822509] ip6_route_output_flags from ip6_dst_lookup_tail+0xa8/0x7b0
[ 82.829162] ip6_dst_lookup_tail from ip6_dst_lookup_flow+0x40/0x90
[ 82.835479] ip6_dst_lookup_flow from ip6_datagram_dst_update+0x18c/0x3d4
[ 82.842315] ip6_datagram_dst_update from __ip6_datagram_connect+0x234/0x4b0
[ 82.849395] __ip6_datagram_connect from ip6_datagram_connect+0x30/0x44
[ 82.856048] ip6_datagram_connect from __sys_connect+0xc4/0xd8
[ 82.861907] __sys_connect from ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
[ 82.867340] Exception stack(0xf0441fa8 to 0xf0441ff0)
[ 82.872436] 1fa0: 004e2208 004e0208 00000006
004e2524 0000001c 00000001
[ 82.880645] 1fc0: 004e2208 004e0208 bec08828 0000011b 004e3544
00000000 00000006 00000000
[ 82.888854] 1fe0: 0000011b bec08778 b6efe83b b6e67616
# INFO: Using loss of 0.16% delay 24 ms reorder 96% 19% with delay 6ms
on ns3eth4
...
# ns1 TCP -> ns1 (dead:beef:1::1:10053) MPTCP (duration 242ms) [ OK ]
# INFO: TFO not supported by the kernel: SKIP
# INFO: test tproxy ipv4
# ns1 MPTCP -> ns2 (10.0.3.1:20000 ) MPTCP (duration 412ms) [ OK ]
# PASS: tproxy ipv4
# INFO: test tproxy ipv6
# ns1 MPTCP -> ns2 (dead:beef:3::1:20000) MPTCP (duration 323ms) [ OK ]
# PASS: tproxy ipv6
# INFO: disconnect
# ns1 MPTCP -> ns1 (10.0.1.1:20001 ) MPTCP (duration 198ms) [ OK ]
# ns1 MPTCP -> ns1 (10.0.1.1:20002 ) TCP (duration 91ms) [ OK ]
# ns1 TCP -> ns1 (10.0.1.1:20003 ) MPTCP (duration 88ms) [ OK ]
# ns1 MPTCP -> ns1 (dead:beef:1::1:20004) MPTCP (duration 147ms) [ OK ]
# ns1 MPTCP -> ns1 (dead:beef:1::1:20005) TCP (duration 95ms) [ OK ]
# ns1 TCP -> ns1 (dead:beef:1::1:20006) MPTCP (duration 83ms) [ OK ]
# Time: 88 seconds
ok 1 selftests: net/mptcp: mptcp_connect.sh
And on other instance,
[ 77.366607] kselftest: Running tests in netfilter
TAP version 13
1..14
# timeout set to 120
# selftests: netfilter: nft_fib.sh
# /dev/stdin:4:10-28: Error: Could not process rule: No such file or directory
# fib saddr . iif oif missing counter log prefix
\"nsrouter-TgCmRmhz nft_rpfilter: \" drop
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# /dev/stdin:4:10-28: Error: Could not process rule: No such file or directory
# fib saddr . iif oif missing counter log prefix
\"ns1-TgCmRmhz nft_rpfilter: \" drop
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# /dev/stdin:4:10-28: Error: Could not process rule: No such file or directory
# fib saddr . iif oif missing counter log prefix
\"ns2-TgCmRmhz nft_rpfilter: \" drop
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[ 79.492797] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): veth0: link becomes ready
[ 79.567138] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): veth1: link becomes ready
[ 80.175903] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready
[ 84.184631]
[ 84.186157] ================================
[ 84.190429] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 84.194732] 6.1.57-rc1 #1 Not tainted
[ 84.198425] --------------------------------
[ 84.202697] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-R} usage.
[ 84.208740] ping/582 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
[ 84.213653] c85b0e24 (&n->lock){++-?}-{2:2}, at: rt6_score_route+0xd8/0x1e0
[ 84.220703] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
[ 84.225616] _raw_write_lock_bh+0x48/0x58
[ 84.229736] __neigh_update+0x74/0xe48
[ 84.233612] neigh_update+0x24/0x2c
[ 84.237213] ndisc_rcv+0x4c4/0x1440
[ 84.240814] icmpv6_rcv+0x604/0x810
[ 84.244415] ip6_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x9c/0x9ac
[ 84.249145] ip6_input_finish+0xa0/0x18c
[ 84.253204] ip6_mc_input+0x148/0x3d0
[ 84.256958] __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x58/0x74
[ 84.261962] process_backlog+0x138/0x300
[ 84.266021] __napi_poll+0x34/0x258
[ 84.269622] net_rx_action+0x160/0x350
[ 84.273468] __do_softirq+0x1b8/0x4dc
[ 84.277252] call_with_stack+0x18/0x20
[ 84.281127] do_softirq+0xb0/0xb4
[ 84.284545] __local_bh_enable_ip+0x180/0x1b8
[ 84.289001] __dev_queue_xmit+0x3bc/0x12d0
[ 84.293212] ip6_finish_output2+0x178/0xb80
[ 84.297515] ip6_finish_output+0x1c8/0x48c
[ 84.301727] ndisc_send_skb+0x4d8/0x8c0
[ 84.305694] addrconf_dad_completed+0xd8/0x3b0
[ 84.310241] addrconf_dad_work+0x208/0x56c
[ 84.314453] process_one_work+0x26c/0x6a0
[ 84.318572] worker_thread+0x60/0x4e8
[ 84.322357] kthread+0xfc/0x11c
[ 84.325622] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x28
[ 84.329315] irq event stamp: 18409
[ 84.332733] hardirqs last enabled at (18409): [<c0422f9c>]
ktime_get_real_ts64+0x208/0x22c
[ 84.341125] hardirqs last disabled at (18408): [<c0422f68>]
ktime_get_real_ts64+0x1d4/0x22c
[ 84.349517] softirqs last enabled at (18368): [<c14e08a8>]
rawv6_sendmsg+0x780/0x14cc
[ 84.357482] softirqs last disabled at (18366): [<c1306ea0>]
release_sock+0x20/0xa0
[ 84.365112]
[ 84.365112] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 84.371673] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 84.371673]
[ 84.377624] CPU0
[ 84.380096] ----
[ 84.382537] lock(&n->lock);
[ 84.385528] <Interrupt>
[ 84.388183] lock(&n->lock);
[ 84.391326]
[ 84.391326] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 84.391326]
[ 84.397277] 3 locks held by ping/582:
[ 84.400970] #0: c24a62f8 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
ip6_route_output_flags+0x0/0x1f4
[ 84.409393] #1: c24a62f8 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
ip6_pol_route+0x60/0x718
[ 84.417114] #2: c24a62f8 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
rt6_score_route+0x78/0x1e0
[ 84.425048]
[ 84.425048] stack backtrace:
[ 84.429412] CPU: 0 PID: 582 Comm: ping Not tainted 6.1.57-rc1 #1
[ 84.435455] Hardware name: Generic DRA74X (Flattened Device Tree)
[ 84.441589] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
[ 84.446868] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x58/0x70
[ 84.451965] dump_stack_lvl from mark_lock.part.0+0xb74/0x128c
[ 84.457824] mark_lock.part.0 from __lock_acquire+0x3d8/0x2aa4
[ 84.463684] __lock_acquire from lock_acquire+0x110/0x334
[ 84.469116] lock_acquire from _raw_read_lock+0x64/0x74
[ 84.474395] _raw_read_lock from rt6_score_route+0xd8/0x1e0
[ 84.480010] rt6_score_route from find_match.part.0+0x6c/0x4d4
[ 84.485900] find_match.part.0 from __find_rr_leaf+0xb8/0x430
[ 84.491668] __find_rr_leaf from fib6_table_lookup+0x234/0x46c
[ 84.497528] fib6_table_lookup from ip6_pol_route+0xd0/0x718
[ 84.503234] ip6_pol_route from ip6_pol_route_output+0x2c/0x34
[ 84.509094] ip6_pol_route_output from fib6_rule_lookup+0xb4/0x1e4
[ 84.515319] fib6_rule_lookup from ip6_route_output_flags_noref+0xbc/0x110
[ 84.522247] ip6_route_output_flags_noref from
ip6_route_output_flags+0x78/0x1f4
[ 84.529693] ip6_route_output_flags from ip6_dst_lookup_tail+0xa8/0x7b0
[ 84.536346] ip6_dst_lookup_tail from ip6_dst_lookup_flow+0x40/0x90
[ 84.542663] ip6_dst_lookup_flow from rawv6_sendmsg+0x3d0/0x14cc
[ 84.548736] rawv6_sendmsg from __sys_sendto+0xd8/0x128
[ 84.553985] __sys_sendto from ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
[ 84.559326] Exception stack(0xf03e1fa8 to 0xf03e1ff0)
[ 84.564422] 1fa0: 004b247c 0000001c 00000006
004b5220 00000040 00000800
[ 84.572662] 1fc0: 004b247c 0000001c 00000001 00000122 004b5220
004b3208 004b0208 beb36778
[ 84.580871] 1fe0: 00000122 beb36608 b6e8ed91 b6df7616
# PASS: fib expression did not cause unwanted packet drops
Links,
- https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/6858069#L4022
- https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/6857530#L3070
- https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/6856378#L3074
metadata:
git_ref: linux-6.1.y
git_repo: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
git_sha: 282079f8e40746cc342a7dd12654e3af7de01823
git_describe: v6.1.56-163-g282079f8e407
kernel_version: 6.1.57-rc1
kernel-config:
https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2WWpUEO5ikJpR8NnchDG1NClaGf/config
artifact-location:
https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2WWpUEO5ikJpR8NnchDG1NClaGf/
toolchain: gcc-10
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 20:43 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2023-10-10 16:51 ` Matthieu Baerts
2023-10-10 17:24 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu Baerts @ 2023-10-10 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naresh Kamboju, Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, David S. Miller,
David Ahern, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Netdev,
bpf, MPTCP Upstream
Hi Naresh,
On 09/10/2023 22:43, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 18:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
>> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
>
>
> The following kernel warnings were noticed several times on arm x15 devices
> running stable-rc 6.1.57-rc1 while running selftests: net: mptcp_connect.sh
> and netfilter: nft_fib.sh.
>
> The possible unsafe locking scenario detected.
>
> FYI,
> Stable-rc/ linux.6.1.y kernel running stable/ linux.6.5.y selftest in this case.
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> kselftest: Running tests in net/mptcp
Thank you for having reported the issue and having added MPTCP ML in Cc!
Just to avoid confusions: the "WARNING" you shared when running
'mptcp_connect.sh' selftest appeared before creating the first MPTCP
connection. It looks like there is no reference to MPTCP in the
calltraces. Also, because you have the same issue with nft_fib.sh, I
would say that this issue is not linked to MPTCP but rather to a recent
modification in the IPv6 stack.
By chance, did you start a "git bisect" to identify the commit causing
this issue?
Cheers,
Matt
--
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-10 16:51 ` Matthieu Baerts
@ 2023-10-10 17:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2023-10-10 18:59 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2023-10-10 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthieu Baerts
Cc: Naresh Kamboju, Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, patches, linux-kernel,
torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel,
jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor,
David S. Miller, David Ahern, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Netdev,
bpf, MPTCP Upstream
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 6:51 PM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Naresh,
>
> On 09/10/2023 22:43, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 18:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> >> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
> >
> >
> > The following kernel warnings were noticed several times on arm x15 devices
> > running stable-rc 6.1.57-rc1 while running selftests: net: mptcp_connect.sh
> > and netfilter: nft_fib.sh.
> >
> > The possible unsafe locking scenario detected.
> >
> > FYI,
> > Stable-rc/ linux.6.1.y kernel running stable/ linux.6.5.y selftest in this case.
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> >
> > kselftest: Running tests in net/mptcp
>
> Thank you for having reported the issue and having added MPTCP ML in Cc!
>
> Just to avoid confusions: the "WARNING" you shared when running
> 'mptcp_connect.sh' selftest appeared before creating the first MPTCP
> connection. It looks like there is no reference to MPTCP in the
> calltraces. Also, because you have the same issue with nft_fib.sh, I
> would say that this issue is not linked to MPTCP but rather to a recent
> modification in the IPv6 stack.
>
> By chance, did you start a "git bisect" to identify the commit causing
> this issue?
>
>
I think stable teams missed to backport
commit c486640aa710ddd06c13a7f7162126e1552e8842
Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Mon Mar 13 20:17:32 2023 +0000
ipv6: remove one read_lock()/read_unlock() pair in rt6_check_neigh()
rt6_check_neigh() uses read_lock() to protect n->nud_state reading.
This seems overkill and causes false sharing.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-10 17:24 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2023-10-10 18:59 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2023-10-10 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Matthieu Baerts, Naresh Kamboju, stable, patches, linux-kernel,
torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel,
jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor,
David S. Miller, David Ahern, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Netdev,
bpf, MPTCP Upstream
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 07:24:08PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 6:51 PM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Naresh,
> >
> > On 09/10/2023 22:43, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 18:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> > >> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
> > >
> > >
> > > The following kernel warnings were noticed several times on arm x15 devices
> > > running stable-rc 6.1.57-rc1 while running selftests: net: mptcp_connect.sh
> > > and netfilter: nft_fib.sh.
> > >
> > > The possible unsafe locking scenario detected.
> > >
> > > FYI,
> > > Stable-rc/ linux.6.1.y kernel running stable/ linux.6.5.y selftest in this case.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > kselftest: Running tests in net/mptcp
> >
> > Thank you for having reported the issue and having added MPTCP ML in Cc!
> >
> > Just to avoid confusions: the "WARNING" you shared when running
> > 'mptcp_connect.sh' selftest appeared before creating the first MPTCP
> > connection. It looks like there is no reference to MPTCP in the
> > calltraces. Also, because you have the same issue with nft_fib.sh, I
> > would say that this issue is not linked to MPTCP but rather to a recent
> > modification in the IPv6 stack.
> >
> > By chance, did you start a "git bisect" to identify the commit causing
> > this issue?
> >
> >
>
> I think stable teams missed to backport
>
> commit c486640aa710ddd06c13a7f7162126e1552e8842
> Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Date: Mon Mar 13 20:17:32 2023 +0000
>
> ipv6: remove one read_lock()/read_unlock() pair in rt6_check_neigh()
>
> rt6_check_neigh() uses read_lock() to protect n->nud_state reading.
>
> This seems overkill and causes false sharing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Ah, didn't know we needed that, now queued up, thanks!
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-10-09 18:44 ` SeongJae Park
2023-10-09 20:43 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2023-10-09 22:49 ` Shuah Khan
2023-10-09 23:23 ` Florian Fainelli
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2023-10-09 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, Shuah Khan
On 10/9/23 06:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
>
Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions.
Tested-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-09 22:49 ` Shuah Khan
@ 2023-10-09 23:23 ` Florian Fainelli
2023-10-10 5:53 ` Bagas Sanjaya
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Florian Fainelli @ 2023-10-09 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow,
conor
On 10/9/23 05:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
On ARCH_BRCMSTB using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels, build tested on
BMIPS_GENERIC:
Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
--
Florian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-09 23:23 ` Florian Fainelli
@ 2023-10-10 5:53 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-10-10 8:10 ` Wang Yugui
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Bagas Sanjaya @ 2023-10-10 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 02:59:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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.
>
Successfully compiled and installed bindeb-pkgs on my computer (Acer
Aspire E15, Intel Core i3 Haswell). No noticeable regressions.
Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-10 5:53 ` Bagas Sanjaya
@ 2023-10-10 8:10 ` Wang Yugui
2023-10-10 11:28 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-10-10 9:51 ` unneeded btrfs changes -- " Pavel Machek
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Wang Yugui @ 2023-10-10 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, wqu
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
Hi,
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
drop this patch from 6.5/6.1/5.15/... please,
Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
btrfs: reject unknown mount options early
becuase of this report.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/f3ac7b74-c011-4d1f-a510-677679fc9743@gmx.com/T/#t
Best Regards
Wang Yugui (wangyugui@e16-tech.com)
2023/10/10
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-10 8:10 ` Wang Yugui
@ 2023-10-10 11:28 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-10-10 11:42 ` Wang Yugui
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2023-10-10 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Yugui
Cc: wqu, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:10:48PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> > There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
>
> drop this patch from 6.5/6.1/5.15/... please,
> Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> btrfs: reject unknown mount options early
>
> becuase of this report.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/f3ac7b74-c011-4d1f-a510-677679fc9743@gmx.com/T/#t
Is there a revert somewhere for this already?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-10 11:28 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2023-10-10 11:42 ` Wang Yugui
2023-10-10 18:42 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Wang Yugui @ 2023-10-10 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: wqu, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
Hi,
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:10:48PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> > > There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> >
> > drop this patch from 6.5/6.1/5.15/... please,
> > Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> > btrfs: reject unknown mount options early
> >
> > becuase of this report.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/f3ac7b74-c011-4d1f-a510-677679fc9743@gmx.com/T/#t
>
> Is there a revert somewhere for this already?
Yet not.
but we can suspend to apply this patch(drop this patch) for stable.
Best Regards
Wang Yugui (wangyugui@e16-tech.com)
2023/10/10
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-10 11:42 ` Wang Yugui
@ 2023-10-10 18:42 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2023-10-10 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Yugui
Cc: wqu, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 07:42:22PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:10:48PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> > > > There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >
> > >
> > > drop this patch from 6.5/6.1/5.15/... please,
> > > Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> > > btrfs: reject unknown mount options early
> > >
> > > becuase of this report.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/f3ac7b74-c011-4d1f-a510-677679fc9743@gmx.com/T/#t
> >
> > Is there a revert somewhere for this already?
>
> Yet not.
>
> but we can suspend to apply this patch(drop this patch) for stable.
Now dropped, thanks.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* unneeded btrfs changes -- Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-10 8:10 ` Wang Yugui
@ 2023-10-10 9:51 ` Pavel Machek
2023-10-10 16:15 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-10-10 9:59 ` Jon Hunter
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2023-10-10 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, sweettea-kernel, dsterba
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1484 bytes --]
Hi!
On Mon 2023-10-09 14:59:41, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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.
>
> Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
> btrfs: use struct fscrypt_str instead of struct qstr
>
> Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
> btrfs: setup qstr from dentrys using fscrypt helper
>
> Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
> btrfs: use struct qstr instead of name and namelen pairs
These are rather intrusive, and marked with
Stable-dep-of: 9af86694fd5d ("btrfs: file_remove_privs needs an exclusive lock in direct io write")
but we don't have that one in 6.1, so we should not have these,
either.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: unneeded btrfs changes -- Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-10 9:51 ` unneeded btrfs changes -- " Pavel Machek
@ 2023-10-10 16:15 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2023-10-10 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Machek
Cc: sweettea-kernel, dsterba, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds,
akpm, linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:51:42AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> On Mon 2023-10-09 14:59:41, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> > There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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.
> >
>
> > Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
> > btrfs: use struct fscrypt_str instead of struct qstr
> >
> > Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
> > btrfs: setup qstr from dentrys using fscrypt helper
> >
> > Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
> > btrfs: use struct qstr instead of name and namelen pairs
>
> These are rather intrusive, and marked with
>
> Stable-dep-of: 9af86694fd5d ("btrfs: file_remove_privs needs an exclusive lock in direct io write")
>
> but we don't have that one in 6.1, so we should not have these,
> either.
Ah, seems we forgot that dep patch, so that's now added which makes more
sense why the prep patches were added.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-10 9:51 ` unneeded btrfs changes -- " Pavel Machek
@ 2023-10-10 9:59 ` Jon Hunter
2023-10-10 13:21 ` Takeshi Ogasawara
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Jon Hunter @ 2023-10-10 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux,
shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, linux-tegra, stable
On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 14:59:41 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
All tests passing for Tegra ...
Test results for stable-v6.1:
10 builds: 10 pass, 0 fail
26 boots: 26 pass, 0 fail
116 tests: 116 pass, 0 fail
Linux version: 6.1.57-rc1-g32856ae49e9f
Boards tested: tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000,
tegra194-p2972-0000, tegra194-p3509-0000+p3668-0000,
tegra20-ventana, tegra210-p2371-2180,
tegra210-p3450-0000, tegra30-cardhu-a04
Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-10 9:59 ` Jon Hunter
@ 2023-10-10 13:21 ` Takeshi Ogasawara
2023-10-10 18:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-10-11 9:40 ` Pavel Machek
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Takeshi Ogasawara @ 2023-10-10 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
Hi Greg
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:16 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +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-6.1.57-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
>
6.1.57-rc1 tested.
Build successfully completed.
Boot successfully completed.
No dmesg regressions.
Video output normal.
Sound output normal.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen10(Intel i7-1260P(x86_64) arch linux)
Thanks
Tested-by: Takeshi Ogasawara <takeshi.ogasawara@futuring-girl.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-10 13:21 ` Takeshi Ogasawara
@ 2023-10-10 18:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-10-11 9:40 ` Pavel Machek
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2023-10-10 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 02:59:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
Build results:
total: 157 pass: 157 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
total: 529 pass: 529 fail: 0
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review
2023-10-09 12:59 [PATCH 6.1 000/162] 6.1.57-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2023-10-10 18:19 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2023-10-11 9:40 ` Pavel Machek
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2023-10-11 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]
Hi!
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.57 release.
> There are 162 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
Released early?
Anyway, this seems to pass our testing.
CIP testing did not find any problems here:
https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-6.1.y
Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de>
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread