* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2025-10-13 16:57 ` Florian Fainelli
2025-10-13 17:06 ` Brett A C Sheffield
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Florian Fainelli @ 2025-10-13 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, rwarsow, conor,
hargar, broonie, achill
On 10/13/25 07:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.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 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-10-13 16:57 ` Florian Fainelli
@ 2025-10-13 17:06 ` Brett A C Sheffield
2025-10-14 1:14 ` Peter Schneider
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Brett A C Sheffield @ 2025-10-13 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
Brett A C Sheffield
# Librecast Test Results
010/010 [ OK ] libmld
120/120 [ OK ] liblibrecast
CPU/kernel: Linux auntie 6.12.53-rc1-g7e50c0945b4a #107 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Oct 13 16:48:02 -00 2025 x86_64 AMD Ryzen 9 9950X 16-Core Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
Tested-by: Brett A C Sheffield <bacs@librecast.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-10-13 16:57 ` Florian Fainelli
2025-10-13 17:06 ` Brett A C Sheffield
@ 2025-10-14 1:14 ` Peter Schneider
2025-10-14 8:46 ` Pavel Machek
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Peter Schneider @ 2025-10-14 1:14 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,
rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill
Am 13.10.2025 um 16:42 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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.
Builds, boots and works on my 2-socket Ivy Bridge Xeon E5-2697 v2 server. No dmesg oddities or regressions found.
Tested-by: Peter Schneider <pschneider1968@googlemail.com>
Beste Grüße,
Peter Schneider
--
Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge,
enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world,
not so the world can see you. -- David McCullough Jr.
OpenPGP: 0xA3828BD796CCE11A8CADE8866E3A92C92C3FF244
Download: https://www.peters-netzplatz.de/download/pschneider1968_pub.asc
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=pschneider1968@googlemail.com
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=pschneider1968@gmail.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 1:14 ` Peter Schneider
@ 2025-10-14 8:46 ` Pavel Machek
2025-10-14 11:26 ` Naresh Kamboju
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2025-10-14 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee,
rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]
Hi!
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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.
CIP testing did not find any problems here:
https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-6.12.y
Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de>
Best regards,
Pavel
--
In cooperation with DENX Software Engineering GmbH, 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: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 8:46 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2025-10-14 11:26 ` Naresh Kamboju
2025-10-14 14:08 ` Naresh Kamboju
2025-10-14 13:09 ` Jon Hunter
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2025-10-14 11:26 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, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
Ilya Leoshkevich, Daniel Borkmann, Dan Carpenter, Arnd Bergmann,
Anders Roxell, Ben Copeland, linux-s390, Netdev, bpf
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 20:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
The S390 defconfig builds failed on the Linux stable-rc 6.12.53-rc1
and 6.6.112-rc1 tag build due to following build warnings / errors
with gcc and clang toolchains.
Also seen on 6.6.112-rc1.
* s390, build
- clang-21-defconfig
- clang-nightly-defconfig
- clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
- clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
- clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
- gcc-14-allmodconfig
- gcc-14-defconfig
- gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
- gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
- gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
- korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
- korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
- korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
First seen on 6.12.53-rc1
Good: v6.12.52
Bad: 6.12.53-rc1 also seen on 6.6.112-rc1
Regression Analysis:
- New regression? yes
- Reproducibility? yes
Build regressions: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error:
'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off'
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
# Build error
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_jit_insn':
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit' has no
member named 'frame_off'
1813 | _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off +
| ^~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) = (op1); \
| ^~~
include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
'struct prog_frame'
16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) = (op1); \
| ^~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1814:46: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof'
1814 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
| ^~~~~~~~
include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
'struct prog_frame'
16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) = (op2); \
| ^~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1816:41: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof'
1816 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
| ^~~~~~~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function '__arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline':
include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
'struct prog_frame'
16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) = (op2); \
| ^~~
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:2813:33: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof'
2813 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
tail_call_cnt));
| ^~~~~~~~
make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.o] Error 1
The git blame is pointing to,
$ git blame -L 1813 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
162513d7d81487 (Ilya Leoshkevich) _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off +
Commit pointing to,
s390/bpf: Write back tail call counter for BPF_PSEUDO_CALL
[ Upstream commit c861a6b147137d10b5ff88a2c492ba376cd1b8b0 ]
## Build
* kernel: 6.12.53-rc1
* git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
* git commit: 7e50c0945b4ab1d4019f9905f6cf5350082c6a84
* git describe: v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.12.y/build/v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
## Test Regressions (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
* s390, build
- clang-21-defconfig
- clang-nightly-defconfig
- clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
- clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
- clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
- gcc-14-allmodconfig
- gcc-14-defconfig
- gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
- gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
- gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
- korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
- korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
- korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
## Metric Regressions (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
## Test Fixes (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
## Metric Fixes (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
## Test result summary
total: 152513, pass: 126770, fail: 5572, skip: 19634, xfail: 537
## Build Summary
* arc: 5 total, 5 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 139 total, 137 passed, 2 failed
* arm64: 57 total, 51 passed, 6 failed
* i386: 18 total, 18 passed, 0 failed
* mips: 34 total, 33 passed, 1 failed
* parisc: 4 total, 4 passed, 0 failed
* powerpc: 40 total, 39 passed, 1 failed
* riscv: 25 total, 24 passed, 1 failed
* s390: 22 total, 8 passed, 14 failed
* sh: 5 total, 5 passed, 0 failed
* sparc: 4 total, 3 passed, 1 failed
* x86_64: 49 total, 46 passed, 3 failed
## Test suites summary
* boot
* commands
* kselftest-arm64
* kselftest-breakpoints
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-efivarfs
* kselftest-exec
* kselftest-fpu
* kselftest-ftrace
* kselftest-futex
* kselftest-gpio
* kselftest-intel_pstate
* kselftest-ipc
* kselftest-kcmp
* kselftest-kvm
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-membarrier
* kselftest-memfd
* kselftest-mincore
* kselftest-mm
* kselftest-mqueue
* kselftest-net
* kselftest-net-mptcp
* kselftest-openat2
* kselftest-ptrace
* kselftest-rseq
* kselftest-rtc
* kselftest-seccomp
* kselftest-sigaltstack
* kselftest-size
* kselftest-tc-testing
* kselftest-timers
* kselftest-tmpfs
* kselftest-tpm2
* kselftest-user_events
* kselftest-vDSO
* kselftest-x86
* kunit
* kvm-unit-tests
* lava
* libgpiod
* libhugetlbfs
* log-parser-boot
* log-parser-build-clang
* log-parser-build-gcc
* log-parser-test
* ltp-capability
* ltp-commands
* ltp-containers
* ltp-controllers
* ltp-cpuhotplug
* ltp-crypto
* ltp-cve
* ltp-dio
* ltp-fcntl-locktests
* ltp-fs
* ltp-fs_bind
* ltp-fs_perms_simple
* ltp-hugetlb
* ltp-math
* ltp-mm
* ltp-nptl
* ltp-pty
* ltp-sched
* ltp-smoke
* ltp-syscalls
* ltp-tracing
* perf
* rcutorture
* rt-tests-cyclicdeadline
* rt-tests-pi-stress
* rt-tests-pmqtest
* rt-tests-rt-migrate-test
* rt-tests-signaltest
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-14 11:26 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2025-10-14 14:08 ` Naresh Kamboju
2025-10-14 14:45 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2025-10-14 14:08 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, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
Ilya Leoshkevich, Daniel Borkmann, Dan Carpenter, Arnd Bergmann,
Anders Roxell, Ben Copeland, linux-s390, Netdev, bpf
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 16:56, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 20:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> > There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> The S390 defconfig builds failed on the Linux stable-rc 6.12.53-rc1
> and 6.6.112-rc1 tag build due to following build warnings / errors
> with gcc and clang toolchains.
>
> Also seen on 6.6.112-rc1.
>
> * s390, build
> - clang-21-defconfig
> - clang-nightly-defconfig
> - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
> - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
> - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> - gcc-14-allmodconfig
> - gcc-14-defconfig
> - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
> - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
> - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
> - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
> - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
>
> First seen on 6.12.53-rc1
> Good: v6.12.52
> Bad: 6.12.53-rc1 also seen on 6.6.112-rc1
>
> Regression Analysis:
> - New regression? yes
> - Reproducibility? yes
>
> Build regressions: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error:
> 'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off'
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> # Build error
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_jit_insn':
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit' has no
> member named 'frame_off'
> 1813 | _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off +
> | ^~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
> 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) = (op1); \
> | ^~~
> include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> 'struct prog_frame'
> 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
> 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) = (op1); \
> | ^~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1814:46: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof'
> 1814 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> | ^~~~~~~~
> include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> 'struct prog_frame'
> 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
> 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) = (op2); \
> | ^~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1816:41: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof'
> 1816 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> | ^~~~~~~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function '__arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline':
> include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> 'struct prog_frame'
> 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6'
> 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) = (op2); \
> | ^~~
> arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:2813:33: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof'
> 2813 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> tail_call_cnt));
> | ^~~~~~~~
> make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.o] Error 1
>
> The git blame is pointing to,
> $ git blame -L 1813 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> 162513d7d81487 (Ilya Leoshkevich) _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off +
>
> Commit pointing to,
> s390/bpf: Write back tail call counter for BPF_PSEUDO_CALL
> [ Upstream commit c861a6b147137d10b5ff88a2c492ba376cd1b8b0 ]
Anders bisected reported regressions and also suggested the missing patches.
Ilya Leoshkevich,
Is it a good idea to backport / cherry pick these two patches on the
6.12 branch ?
b2268d550d20 ("s390/bpf: Centralize frame offset calculations")
e26d523edf2a ("s390/bpf: Describe the frame using a struct instead of
constants")
> ## Build
> * kernel: 6.12.53-rc1
> * git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> * git commit: 7e50c0945b4ab1d4019f9905f6cf5350082c6a84
> * git describe: v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
> * test details:
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.12.y/build/v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
>
> ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
> * s390, build
> - clang-21-defconfig
> - clang-nightly-defconfig
> - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
> - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
> - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> - gcc-14-allmodconfig
> - gcc-14-defconfig
> - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
> - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
> - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
> - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
> - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
- Naresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-14 14:08 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2025-10-14 14:45 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2025-10-15 8:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2025-10-14 14:45 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, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
Daniel Borkmann, Dan Carpenter, Arnd Bergmann, Anders Roxell,
Ben Copeland, linux-s390, Netdev, bpf
On Tue, 2025-10-14 at 19:38 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 16:56, Naresh Kamboju
> <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 20:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53
> > > release.
> > > There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > The S390 defconfig builds failed on the Linux stable-rc 6.12.53-rc1
> > and 6.6.112-rc1 tag build due to following build warnings / errors
> > with gcc and clang toolchains.
> >
> > Also seen on 6.6.112-rc1.
> >
> > * s390, build
> > - clang-21-defconfig
> > - clang-nightly-defconfig
> > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> > - gcc-14-allmodconfig
> > - gcc-14-defconfig
> > - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
> > - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> >
> > First seen on 6.12.53-rc1
> > Good: v6.12.52
> > Bad: 6.12.53-rc1 also seen on 6.6.112-rc1
> >
> > Regression Analysis:
> > - New regression? yes
> > - Reproducibility? yes
> >
> > Build regressions: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error:
> > 'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off'
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> >
> > # Build error
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_jit_insn':
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit' has
> > no
> > member named 'frame_off'
> > 1813 | _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off
> > +
> > | ^~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro
> > '_EMIT6'
> > 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) =
> > (op1); \
> > | ^~~
> > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> > 'struct prog_frame'
> > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > MEMBER)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro
> > '_EMIT6'
> > 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) =
> > (op1); \
> > | ^~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1814:46: note: in expansion of macro
> > 'offsetof'
> > 1814 |
> > offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> > | ^~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> > 'struct prog_frame'
> > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > MEMBER)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro
> > '_EMIT6'
> > 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) =
> > (op2); \
> > |
> > ^~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1816:41: note: in expansion of macro
> > 'offsetof'
> > 1816 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct
> > prog_frame,
> > | ^~~~~~~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function
> > '__arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline':
> > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> > 'struct prog_frame'
> > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > MEMBER)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro
> > '_EMIT6'
> > 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) =
> > (op2); \
> > |
> > ^~~
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:2813:33: note: in expansion of macro
> > 'offsetof'
> > 2813 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> > tail_call_cnt));
> > | ^~~~~~~~
> > make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229:
> > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.o] Error 1
> >
> > The git blame is pointing to,
> > $ git blame -L 1813 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > 162513d7d81487 (Ilya Leoshkevich) _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit-
> > >frame_off +
> >
> > Commit pointing to,
> > s390/bpf: Write back tail call counter for BPF_PSEUDO_CALL
> > [ Upstream commit c861a6b147137d10b5ff88a2c492ba376cd1b8b0 ]
>
> Anders bisected reported regressions and also suggested the missing
> patches.
>
> Ilya Leoshkevich,
> Is it a good idea to backport / cherry pick these two patches on the
> 6.12 branch ?
>
> b2268d550d20 ("s390/bpf: Centralize frame offset calculations")
> e26d523edf2a ("s390/bpf: Describe the frame using a struct instead of
> constants")
Thank you for the report and the investigation!
I think it would be a good idea to backport these.
Both are NFC changes that went into v6.17 and there were no complaints.
For v6.6 we also need this one (also NFC):
67aed27bcd46 ("s390/bpf: Change seen_reg to a mask")
> > ## Build
> > * kernel: 6.12.53-rc1
> > * git:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> > * git commit: 7e50c0945b4ab1d4019f9905f6cf5350082c6a84
> > * git describe: v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
> > * test details:
> > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.12.y/build/v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
> >
> > ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
> > * s390, build
> > - clang-21-defconfig
> > - clang-nightly-defconfig
> > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> > - gcc-14-allmodconfig
> > - gcc-14-defconfig
> > - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
> > - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
> > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
>
> - Naresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-14 14:45 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2025-10-15 8:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-10-15 13:05 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2025-10-15 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ilya Leoshkevich
Cc: Naresh Kamboju, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
Daniel Borkmann, Dan Carpenter, Arnd Bergmann, Anders Roxell,
Ben Copeland, linux-s390, Netdev, bpf
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-10-14 at 19:38 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 16:56, Naresh Kamboju
> > <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 20:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53
> > > > release.
> > > > There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > >
> > > The S390 defconfig builds failed on the Linux stable-rc 6.12.53-rc1
> > > and 6.6.112-rc1 tag build due to following build warnings / errors
> > > with gcc and clang toolchains.
> > >
> > > Also seen on 6.6.112-rc1.
> > >
> > > * s390, build
> > > - clang-21-defconfig
> > > - clang-nightly-defconfig
> > > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> > > - gcc-14-allmodconfig
> > > - gcc-14-defconfig
> > > - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
> > > - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> > >
> > > First seen on 6.12.53-rc1
> > > Good: v6.12.52
> > > Bad: 6.12.53-rc1 also seen on 6.6.112-rc1
> > >
> > > Regression Analysis:
> > > - New regression? yes
> > > - Reproducibility? yes
> > >
> > > Build regressions: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error:
> > > 'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off'
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > # Build error
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_jit_insn':
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit' has
> > > no
> > > member named 'frame_off'
> > > 1813 | _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off
> > > +
> > > | ^~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro
> > > '_EMIT6'
> > > 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) =
> > > (op1); \
> > > | ^~~
> > > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> > > 'struct prog_frame'
> > > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > > MEMBER)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro
> > > '_EMIT6'
> > > 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) =
> > > (op1); \
> > > | ^~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1814:46: note: in expansion of macro
> > > 'offsetof'
> > > 1814 |
> > > offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~
> > > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> > > 'struct prog_frame'
> > > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > > MEMBER)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro
> > > '_EMIT6'
> > > 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) =
> > > (op2); \
> > > |
> > > ^~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1816:41: note: in expansion of macro
> > > 'offsetof'
> > > 1816 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct
> > > prog_frame,
> > > | ^~~~~~~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function
> > > '__arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline':
> > > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type
> > > 'struct prog_frame'
> > > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > > MEMBER)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro
> > > '_EMIT6'
> > > 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) =
> > > (op2); \
> > > |
> > > ^~~
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:2813:33: note: in expansion of macro
> > > 'offsetof'
> > > 2813 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> > > tail_call_cnt));
> > > | ^~~~~~~~
> > > make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229:
> > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.o] Error 1
> > >
> > > The git blame is pointing to,
> > > $ git blame -L 1813 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > 162513d7d81487 (Ilya Leoshkevich) _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit-
> > > >frame_off +
> > >
> > > Commit pointing to,
> > > s390/bpf: Write back tail call counter for BPF_PSEUDO_CALL
> > > [ Upstream commit c861a6b147137d10b5ff88a2c492ba376cd1b8b0 ]
> >
> > Anders bisected reported regressions and also suggested the missing
> > patches.
> >
> > Ilya Leoshkevich,
> > Is it a good idea to backport / cherry pick these two patches on the
> > 6.12 branch ?
> >
> > b2268d550d20 ("s390/bpf: Centralize frame offset calculations")
> > e26d523edf2a ("s390/bpf: Describe the frame using a struct instead of
> > constants")
>
> Thank you for the report and the investigation!
>
> I think it would be a good idea to backport these.
> Both are NFC changes that went into v6.17 and there were no complaints.
>
> For v6.6 we also need this one (also NFC):
>
> 67aed27bcd46 ("s390/bpf: Change seen_reg to a mask")
Thanks for the info, I'll go drop the original offending commit from
both queues. Can someone please resubmit all of the needed changes for
us to apply so that I am sure to get them all correctly?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-15 8:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2025-10-15 13:05 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2025-10-15 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Naresh Kamboju, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
Daniel Borkmann, Dan Carpenter, Arnd Bergmann, Anders Roxell,
Ben Copeland, linux-s390, Netdev, bpf
On Wed, 2025-10-15 at 10:46 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-10-14 at 19:38 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 16:56, Naresh Kamboju
> > > <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 20:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53
> > > > > release.
> > > > > There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> > > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > > > The S390 defconfig builds failed on the Linux stable-rc
> > > > 6.12.53-rc1
> > > > and 6.6.112-rc1 tag build due to following build warnings /
> > > > errors
> > > > with gcc and clang toolchains.
> > > >
> > > > Also seen on 6.6.112-rc1.
> > > >
> > > > * s390, build
> > > > - clang-21-defconfig
> > > > - clang-nightly-defconfig
> > > > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > > > - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> > > > - gcc-14-allmodconfig
> > > > - gcc-14-defconfig
> > > > - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > > - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d
> > > > - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening
> > > > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full
> > > > - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
> > > >
> > > > First seen on 6.12.53-rc1
> > > > Good: v6.12.52
> > > > Bad: 6.12.53-rc1 also seen on 6.6.112-rc1
> > > >
> > > > Regression Analysis:
> > > > - New regression? yes
> > > > - Reproducibility? yes
> > > >
> > > > Build regressions: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error:
> > > > 'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off'
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > # Build error
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_jit_insn':
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit'
> > > > has
> > > > no
> > > > member named 'frame_off'
> > > > 1813 | _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit-
> > > > >frame_off
> > > > +
> > > > | ^~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of
> > > > macro
> > > > '_EMIT6'
> > > > 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) =
> > > > (op1); \
> > > > |
> > > > ^~~
> > > > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined
> > > > type
> > > > 'struct prog_frame'
> > > > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
> > > > __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > > > MEMBER)
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of
> > > > macro
> > > > '_EMIT6'
> > > > 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) =
> > > > (op1); \
> > > > |
> > > > ^~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1814:46: note: in expansion of
> > > > macro
> > > > 'offsetof'
> > > > 1814 |
> > > > offsetof(struct prog_frame,
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~
> > > > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined
> > > > type
> > > > 'struct prog_frame'
> > > > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
> > > > __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > > > MEMBER)
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of
> > > > macro
> > > > '_EMIT6'
> > > > 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4)
> > > > =
> > > > (op2); \
> > > >
> > > > |
> > > > ^~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1816:41: note: in expansion of
> > > > macro
> > > > 'offsetof'
> > > > 1816 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct
> > > > prog_frame,
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function
> > > > '__arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline':
> > > > include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined
> > > > type
> > > > 'struct prog_frame'
> > > > 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER)
> > > > __builtin_offsetof(TYPE,
> > > > MEMBER)
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of
> > > > macro
> > > > '_EMIT6'
> > > > 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4)
> > > > =
> > > > (op2); \
> > > >
> > > > |
> > > > ^~~
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:2813:33: note: in expansion of
> > > > macro
> > > > 'offsetof'
> > > > 2813 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct
> > > > prog_frame,
> > > > tail_call_cnt));
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~
> > > > make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229:
> > > > arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.o] Error 1
> > > >
> > > > The git blame is pointing to,
> > > > $ git blame -L 1813 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > 162513d7d81487 (Ilya Leoshkevich) _EMIT6(0xd203f000 |
> > > > (jit-
> > > > > frame_off +
> > > >
> > > > Commit pointing to,
> > > > s390/bpf: Write back tail call counter for BPF_PSEUDO_CALL
> > > > [ Upstream commit c861a6b147137d10b5ff88a2c492ba376cd1b8b0 ]
> > >
> > > Anders bisected reported regressions and also suggested the
> > > missing
> > > patches.
> > >
> > > Ilya Leoshkevich,
> > > Is it a good idea to backport / cherry pick these two patches on
> > > the
> > > 6.12 branch ?
> > >
> > > b2268d550d20 ("s390/bpf: Centralize frame offset calculations")
> > > e26d523edf2a ("s390/bpf: Describe the frame using a struct
> > > instead of
> > > constants")
> >
> > Thank you for the report and the investigation!
> >
> > I think it would be a good idea to backport these.
> > Both are NFC changes that went into v6.17 and there were no
> > complaints.
> >
> > For v6.6 we also need this one (also NFC):
> >
> > 67aed27bcd46 ("s390/bpf: Change seen_reg to a mask")
>
> Thanks for the info, I'll go drop the original offending commit from
> both queues. Can someone please resubmit all of the needed changes
> for
> us to apply so that I am sure to get them all correctly?
Will do; they require a very minor conflict resolution.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 11:26 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2025-10-14 13:09 ` Jon Hunter
2025-10-14 13:51 ` Ron Economos
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Jon Hunter @ 2025-10-14 13:09 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, rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill,
linux-tegra, stable
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 16:42:22 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
All tests passing for Tegra ...
Test results for stable-v6.12:
10 builds: 10 pass, 0 fail
28 boots: 28 pass, 0 fail
120 tests: 120 pass, 0 fail
Linux version: 6.12.53-rc1-g7e50c0945b4a
Boards tested: tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000,
tegra186-p3509-0000+p3636-0001, 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 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 13:09 ` Jon Hunter
@ 2025-10-14 13:51 ` Ron Economos
2025-10-14 14:17 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ron Economos @ 2025-10-14 13:51 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,
rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill
On 10/13/25 07:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Built and booted successfully on RISC-V RV64 (HiFive Unmatched).
Tested-by: Ron Economos <re@w6rz.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 13:51 ` Ron Economos
@ 2025-10-14 14:17 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
2025-10-14 17:52 ` Shuah Khan
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Harshit Mogalapalli @ 2025-10-14 14:17 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,
rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill
Hi Greg,
On 13/10/25 20:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
No problems seen on x86_64 and aarch64 with our testing.
Tested-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
Thanks,
Harshit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 14:17 ` Harshit Mogalapalli
@ 2025-10-14 17:52 ` Shuah Khan
2025-10-14 18:11 ` Miguel Ojeda
[not found] ` <20251013144334.953291810@linuxfoundation.org>
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2025-10-14 17:52 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,
rwarsow, conor, hargar, broonie, achill, Shuah Khan
On 10/13/25 08:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +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-6.12.53-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-6.12.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 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review
2025-10-13 14:42 [PATCH 6.12 000/262] 6.12.53-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-14 17:52 ` Shuah Khan
@ 2025-10-14 18:11 ` Miguel Ojeda
[not found] ` <20251013144334.953291810@linuxfoundation.org>
10 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Miguel Ojeda @ 2025-10-14 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh
Cc: achill, akpm, broonie, conor, f.fainelli, hargar, jonathanh,
linux-kernel, linux, lkft-triage, patches, patches, pavel,
rwarsow, shuah, stable, sudipm.mukherjee, torvalds, Miguel Ojeda
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 16:42:22 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release.
> There are 262 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, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
Boot-tested under QEMU for Rust x86_64, arm64 and riscv64; built-tested
for loongarch64:
Tested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread[parent not found: <20251013144334.953291810@linuxfoundation.org>]
* Re: [PATCH 6.12 242/262] ext4: fix checks for orphan inodes
[not found] ` <20251013144334.953291810@linuxfoundation.org>
@ 2026-01-08 8:19 ` Jan Kiszka
2026-01-08 10:31 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2026-01-08 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Jan Kara, Theodore Tso
Cc: patches, stable, Zhang Yi, linux-ext4, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
cip-dev
On 13.10.25 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>
> commit acf943e9768ec9d9be80982ca0ebc4bfd6b7631e upstream.
>
> When orphan file feature is enabled, inode can be tracked as orphan
> either in the standard orphan list or in the orphan file. The first can
> be tested by checking ei->i_orphan list head, the second is recorded by
> EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE inode state flag. There are several places where
> we want to check whether inode is tracked as orphan and only some of
> them properly check for both possibilities. Luckily the consequences are
> mostly minor, the worst that can happen is that we track an inode as
> orphan although we don't need to and e2fsck then complains (resulting in
> occasional ext4/307 xfstest failures). Fix the problem by introducing a
> helper for checking whether an inode is tracked as orphan and use it in
> appropriate places.
>
> Fixes: 4a79a98c7b19 ("ext4: Improve scalability of ext4 orphan file handling")
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Reviewed-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> Message-ID: <20250925123038.20264-2-jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 10 ++++++++++
> fs/ext4/file.c | 2 +-
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +-
> fs/ext4/orphan.c | 6 +-----
> fs/ext4/super.c | 4 ++--
> 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -1970,6 +1970,16 @@ static inline bool ext4_verity_in_progre
> #define NEXT_ORPHAN(inode) EXT4_I(inode)->i_dtime
>
> /*
> + * Check whether the inode is tracked as orphan (either in orphan file or
> + * orphan list).
> + */
> +static inline bool ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + return ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
> + !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * Codes for operating systems
> */
> #define EXT4_OS_LINUX 0
> --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static void ext4_inode_extension_cleanup
> * to cleanup the orphan list in ext4_handle_inode_extension(). Do it
> * now.
> */
> - if (!list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan) && inode->i_nlink) {
> + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode) && inode->i_nlink) {
> handle_t *handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, EXT4_HT_INODE, 2);
>
> if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -4330,7 +4330,7 @@ static int ext4_fill_raw_inode(struct in
> * old inodes get re-used with the upper 16 bits of the
> * uid/gid intact.
> */
> - if (ei->i_dtime && list_empty(&ei->i_orphan)) {
> + if (ei->i_dtime && !ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
> raw_inode->i_uid_high = 0;
> raw_inode->i_gid_high = 0;
> } else {
> --- a/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> @@ -109,11 +109,7 @@ int ext4_orphan_add(handle_t *handle, st
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!(inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING)) &&
> !inode_is_locked(inode));
> - /*
> - * Inode orphaned in orphan file or in orphan list?
> - */
> - if (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
> - !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))
> + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode))
> return 0;
>
> /*
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -1461,9 +1461,9 @@ static void ext4_free_in_core_inode(stru
>
> static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> - if (!list_empty(&(EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))) {
> + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
> ext4_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_ERR,
> - "Inode %lu (%p): orphan list check failed!",
> + "Inode %lu (%p): inode tracked as orphan!",
> inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode));
> print_hex_dump(KERN_INFO, "", DUMP_PREFIX_ADDRESS, 16, 4,
> EXT4_I(inode), sizeof(struct ext4_inode_info),
>
>
Since this patch, I'm getting "inode tracked as orphan" warnings on ARM
32-bit boards (not qemu, other archs not tested yet) when rebooting or
shutting down. The affected partition is used as backing storage for an
overlayfs (Debian image built from [1]). Still, systemd reports to have
sucessfully unmounted the partition.
[ OK ] Stopped systemd-journal-flush.serv…lush Journal to Persistent Storage.
[ OK ] Unmounted run-lock.mount - Legacy Locks Directory /run/lock.
[ OK ] Unmounted tmp.mount - Temporary Directory /tmp.
[ OK ] Stopped target swap.target - Swaps.
Unmounting var.mount - /var...
[ OK ] Unmounted var.mount - /var.
[ OK ] Stopped target local-fs-pre.target…Preparation for Local File Systems.
[ OK ] Reached target umount.target - Unmount All Filesystems.
[ OK ] Stopped systemd-remount-fs.service…mount Root and Kernel File Systems.
[ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…Create Static Device Nodes in /dev.
[ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…ic Device Nodes in /dev gracefully.
[ OK ] Reached target shutdown.target - System Shutdown.
[ OK ] Reached target final.target - Late Shutdown Services.
[ OK ] Finished systemd-poweroff.service - System Power Off.
[ OK ] Reached target poweroff.target - System Power Off.
[ 52.948231] watchdog: watchdog0: watchdog did not stop!
[ 53.440970] EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p6): Inode 1 (b6b2dba9): inode tracked as orphan!
[ 53.449709] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 412 Comm: (sd-umount) Not tainted 6.12.52-00240-gf50bece98c66 #12
[ 53.449728] Hardware name: ti TI AM335x BeagleBone Black/TI AM335x BeagleBone Black, BIOS 2025.07 07/01/2025
[ 53.449740] Call trace:
[ 53.449757] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
[ 53.449807] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x74
[ 53.449839] dump_stack_lvl from ext4_destroy_inode+0x7c/0x10c
[ 53.449870] ext4_destroy_inode from destroy_inode+0x5c/0x70
[ 53.449897] destroy_inode from ext4_mb_release+0xc8/0x268
[ 53.449936] ext4_mb_release from ext4_put_super+0xe4/0x308
[ 53.449962] ext4_put_super from generic_shutdown_super+0x84/0x154
[ 53.449996] generic_shutdown_super from kill_block_super+0x18/0x34
[ 53.450023] kill_block_super from ext4_kill_sb+0x28/0x3c
[ 53.450059] ext4_kill_sb from deactivate_locked_super+0x58/0x90
[ 53.450086] deactivate_locked_super from cleanup_mnt+0x74/0xd0
[ 53.450113] cleanup_mnt from task_work_run+0x88/0xa0
[ 53.450136] task_work_run from do_work_pending+0x394/0x3cc
[ 53.450156] do_work_pending from slow_work_pending+0xc/0x24
[ 53.450175] Exception stack(0xe093dfb0 to 0xe093dff8)
[ 53.450190] dfa0: 00000000 00000009 00000000 00000000
[ 53.450205] dfc0: be9e0b2c 004e2aa0 be9e0a20 00000034 be9e0a04 00000000 be9e0a20 00000000
[ 53.450218] dfe0: 00000034 be9e095c b6ba609b b6b0f736 00030030 004e2ac0
[ 53.730379] reboot: Power down
I'm not getting the warning with the same image but kernels 6.18+ or
also 6.17.13 (the latter received this as backport as well). I do get
the warning with 6.1.159 as well, and also when moving up to 6.12.63
which received further ext4 backports. I didn't test 6.6 or 5.15 so far,
but I suspect they are equally affected.
Before digging deep into this to me unfamiliar subsystem: Could we miss
some backport(s) to 6.12 and below that 6.17+ have? Any suggestions to
try out first?
Jan
[1] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-core/isar-cip-core
--
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 242/262] ext4: fix checks for orphan inodes
2026-01-08 8:19 ` [PATCH 6.12 242/262] ext4: fix checks for orphan inodes Jan Kiszka
@ 2026-01-08 10:31 ` Jan Kara
2026-01-08 10:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2026-01-08 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Jan Kara, Theodore Tso, patches,
stable, Zhang Yi, linux-ext4, Linux Kernel Mailing List, cip-dev
On Thu 08-01-26 09:19:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 13.10.25 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >
> > commit acf943e9768ec9d9be80982ca0ebc4bfd6b7631e upstream.
> >
> > When orphan file feature is enabled, inode can be tracked as orphan
> > either in the standard orphan list or in the orphan file. The first can
> > be tested by checking ei->i_orphan list head, the second is recorded by
> > EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE inode state flag. There are several places where
> > we want to check whether inode is tracked as orphan and only some of
> > them properly check for both possibilities. Luckily the consequences are
> > mostly minor, the worst that can happen is that we track an inode as
> > orphan although we don't need to and e2fsck then complains (resulting in
> > occasional ext4/307 xfstest failures). Fix the problem by introducing a
> > helper for checking whether an inode is tracked as orphan and use it in
> > appropriate places.
> >
> > Fixes: 4a79a98c7b19 ("ext4: Improve scalability of ext4 orphan file handling")
> > Cc: stable@kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > Reviewed-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> > Message-ID: <20250925123038.20264-2-jack@suse.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/ext4.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > fs/ext4/file.c | 2 +-
> > fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +-
> > fs/ext4/orphan.c | 6 +-----
> > fs/ext4/super.c | 4 ++--
> > 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > @@ -1970,6 +1970,16 @@ static inline bool ext4_verity_in_progre
> > #define NEXT_ORPHAN(inode) EXT4_I(inode)->i_dtime
> >
> > /*
> > + * Check whether the inode is tracked as orphan (either in orphan file or
> > + * orphan list).
> > + */
> > +static inline bool ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > + return ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
> > + !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > * Codes for operating systems
> > */
> > #define EXT4_OS_LINUX 0
> > --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> > @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static void ext4_inode_extension_cleanup
> > * to cleanup the orphan list in ext4_handle_inode_extension(). Do it
> > * now.
> > */
> > - if (!list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan) && inode->i_nlink) {
> > + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode) && inode->i_nlink) {
> > handle_t *handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, EXT4_HT_INODE, 2);
> >
> > if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@ -4330,7 +4330,7 @@ static int ext4_fill_raw_inode(struct in
> > * old inodes get re-used with the upper 16 bits of the
> > * uid/gid intact.
> > */
> > - if (ei->i_dtime && list_empty(&ei->i_orphan)) {
> > + if (ei->i_dtime && !ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
> > raw_inode->i_uid_high = 0;
> > raw_inode->i_gid_high = 0;
> > } else {
> > --- a/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> > @@ -109,11 +109,7 @@ int ext4_orphan_add(handle_t *handle, st
> >
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING)) &&
> > !inode_is_locked(inode));
> > - /*
> > - * Inode orphaned in orphan file or in orphan list?
> > - */
> > - if (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
> > - !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))
> > + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode))
> > return 0;
> >
> > /*
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -1461,9 +1461,9 @@ static void ext4_free_in_core_inode(stru
> >
> > static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> > {
> > - if (!list_empty(&(EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))) {
> > + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
> > ext4_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_ERR,
> > - "Inode %lu (%p): orphan list check failed!",
> > + "Inode %lu (%p): inode tracked as orphan!",
> > inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode));
> > print_hex_dump(KERN_INFO, "", DUMP_PREFIX_ADDRESS, 16, 4,
> > EXT4_I(inode), sizeof(struct ext4_inode_info),
> >
> >
>
> Since this patch, I'm getting "inode tracked as orphan" warnings on ARM
> 32-bit boards (not qemu, other archs not tested yet) when rebooting or
> shutting down. The affected partition is used as backing storage for an
> overlayfs (Debian image built from [1]). Still, systemd reports to have
> sucessfully unmounted the partition.
>
> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-journal-flush.serv…lush Journal to Persistent Storage.
> [ OK ] Unmounted run-lock.mount - Legacy Locks Directory /run/lock.
> [ OK ] Unmounted tmp.mount - Temporary Directory /tmp.
> [ OK ] Stopped target swap.target - Swaps.
> Unmounting var.mount - /var...
> [ OK ] Unmounted var.mount - /var.
> [ OK ] Stopped target local-fs-pre.target…Preparation for Local File Systems.
> [ OK ] Reached target umount.target - Unmount All Filesystems.
> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-remount-fs.service…mount Root and Kernel File Systems.
> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…Create Static Device Nodes in /dev.
> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…ic Device Nodes in /dev gracefully.
> [ OK ] Reached target shutdown.target - System Shutdown.
> [ OK ] Reached target final.target - Late Shutdown Services.
> [ OK ] Finished systemd-poweroff.service - System Power Off.
> [ OK ] Reached target poweroff.target - System Power Off.
> [ 52.948231] watchdog: watchdog0: watchdog did not stop!
> [ 53.440970] EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p6): Inode 1 (b6b2dba9): inode tracked as orphan!
> [ 53.449709] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 412 Comm: (sd-umount) Not tainted 6.12.52-00240-gf50bece98c66 #12
> [ 53.449728] Hardware name: ti TI AM335x BeagleBone Black/TI AM335x BeagleBone Black, BIOS 2025.07 07/01/2025
> [ 53.449740] Call trace:
> [ 53.449757] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
> [ 53.449807] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x74
> [ 53.449839] dump_stack_lvl from ext4_destroy_inode+0x7c/0x10c
> [ 53.449870] ext4_destroy_inode from destroy_inode+0x5c/0x70
> [ 53.449897] destroy_inode from ext4_mb_release+0xc8/0x268
> [ 53.449936] ext4_mb_release from ext4_put_super+0xe4/0x308
> [ 53.449962] ext4_put_super from generic_shutdown_super+0x84/0x154
> [ 53.449996] generic_shutdown_super from kill_block_super+0x18/0x34
> [ 53.450023] kill_block_super from ext4_kill_sb+0x28/0x3c
> [ 53.450059] ext4_kill_sb from deactivate_locked_super+0x58/0x90
> [ 53.450086] deactivate_locked_super from cleanup_mnt+0x74/0xd0
> [ 53.450113] cleanup_mnt from task_work_run+0x88/0xa0
> [ 53.450136] task_work_run from do_work_pending+0x394/0x3cc
> [ 53.450156] do_work_pending from slow_work_pending+0xc/0x24
> [ 53.450175] Exception stack(0xe093dfb0 to 0xe093dff8)
> [ 53.450190] dfa0: 00000000 00000009 00000000 00000000
> [ 53.450205] dfc0: be9e0b2c 004e2aa0 be9e0a20 00000034 be9e0a04 00000000 be9e0a20 00000000
> [ 53.450218] dfe0: 00000034 be9e095c b6ba609b b6b0f736 00030030 004e2ac0
> [ 53.730379] reboot: Power down
>
> I'm not getting the warning with the same image but kernels 6.18+ or
> also 6.17.13 (the latter received this as backport as well). I do get
> the warning with 6.1.159 as well, and also when moving up to 6.12.63
> which received further ext4 backports. I didn't test 6.6 or 5.15 so far,
> but I suspect they are equally affected.
>
> Before digging deep into this to me unfamiliar subsystem: Could we miss
> some backport(s) to 6.12 and below that 6.17+ have? Any suggestions to
> try out first?
I suspect you're missing 4091c8206cfd ("ext4: clear i_state_flags when
alloc inode") (which BTW has Fixes tag to this commit).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 242/262] ext4: fix checks for orphan inodes
2026-01-08 10:31 ` Jan Kara
@ 2026-01-08 10:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2026-01-08 14:11 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2026-01-08 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara
Cc: Jan Kiszka, stable, Theodore Tso, patches, stable, Zhang Yi,
linux-ext4, Linux Kernel Mailing List, cip-dev
On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:31:10AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 08-01-26 09:19:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 13.10.25 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > >
> > > commit acf943e9768ec9d9be80982ca0ebc4bfd6b7631e upstream.
> > >
> > > When orphan file feature is enabled, inode can be tracked as orphan
> > > either in the standard orphan list or in the orphan file. The first can
> > > be tested by checking ei->i_orphan list head, the second is recorded by
> > > EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE inode state flag. There are several places where
> > > we want to check whether inode is tracked as orphan and only some of
> > > them properly check for both possibilities. Luckily the consequences are
> > > mostly minor, the worst that can happen is that we track an inode as
> > > orphan although we don't need to and e2fsck then complains (resulting in
> > > occasional ext4/307 xfstest failures). Fix the problem by introducing a
> > > helper for checking whether an inode is tracked as orphan and use it in
> > > appropriate places.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 4a79a98c7b19 ("ext4: Improve scalability of ext4 orphan file handling")
> > > Cc: stable@kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > Reviewed-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> > > Message-ID: <20250925123038.20264-2-jack@suse.cz>
> > > Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > ---
> > > fs/ext4/ext4.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > fs/ext4/file.c | 2 +-
> > > fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +-
> > > fs/ext4/orphan.c | 6 +-----
> > > fs/ext4/super.c | 4 ++--
> > > 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > > @@ -1970,6 +1970,16 @@ static inline bool ext4_verity_in_progre
> > > #define NEXT_ORPHAN(inode) EXT4_I(inode)->i_dtime
> > >
> > > /*
> > > + * Check whether the inode is tracked as orphan (either in orphan file or
> > > + * orphan list).
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(struct inode *inode)
> > > +{
> > > + return ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
> > > + !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > * Codes for operating systems
> > > */
> > > #define EXT4_OS_LINUX 0
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> > > @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static void ext4_inode_extension_cleanup
> > > * to cleanup the orphan list in ext4_handle_inode_extension(). Do it
> > > * now.
> > > */
> > > - if (!list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan) && inode->i_nlink) {
> > > + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode) && inode->i_nlink) {
> > > handle_t *handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, EXT4_HT_INODE, 2);
> > >
> > > if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > @@ -4330,7 +4330,7 @@ static int ext4_fill_raw_inode(struct in
> > > * old inodes get re-used with the upper 16 bits of the
> > > * uid/gid intact.
> > > */
> > > - if (ei->i_dtime && list_empty(&ei->i_orphan)) {
> > > + if (ei->i_dtime && !ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
> > > raw_inode->i_uid_high = 0;
> > > raw_inode->i_gid_high = 0;
> > > } else {
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> > > @@ -109,11 +109,7 @@ int ext4_orphan_add(handle_t *handle, st
> > >
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING)) &&
> > > !inode_is_locked(inode));
> > > - /*
> > > - * Inode orphaned in orphan file or in orphan list?
> > > - */
> > > - if (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
> > > - !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))
> > > + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > @@ -1461,9 +1461,9 @@ static void ext4_free_in_core_inode(stru
> > >
> > > static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> > > {
> > > - if (!list_empty(&(EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))) {
> > > + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
> > > ext4_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_ERR,
> > > - "Inode %lu (%p): orphan list check failed!",
> > > + "Inode %lu (%p): inode tracked as orphan!",
> > > inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode));
> > > print_hex_dump(KERN_INFO, "", DUMP_PREFIX_ADDRESS, 16, 4,
> > > EXT4_I(inode), sizeof(struct ext4_inode_info),
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Since this patch, I'm getting "inode tracked as orphan" warnings on ARM
> > 32-bit boards (not qemu, other archs not tested yet) when rebooting or
> > shutting down. The affected partition is used as backing storage for an
> > overlayfs (Debian image built from [1]). Still, systemd reports to have
> > sucessfully unmounted the partition.
> >
> > [ OK ] Stopped systemd-journal-flush.serv…lush Journal to Persistent Storage.
> > [ OK ] Unmounted run-lock.mount - Legacy Locks Directory /run/lock.
> > [ OK ] Unmounted tmp.mount - Temporary Directory /tmp.
> > [ OK ] Stopped target swap.target - Swaps.
> > Unmounting var.mount - /var...
> > [ OK ] Unmounted var.mount - /var.
> > [ OK ] Stopped target local-fs-pre.target…Preparation for Local File Systems.
> > [ OK ] Reached target umount.target - Unmount All Filesystems.
> > [ OK ] Stopped systemd-remount-fs.service…mount Root and Kernel File Systems.
> > [ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…Create Static Device Nodes in /dev.
> > [ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…ic Device Nodes in /dev gracefully.
> > [ OK ] Reached target shutdown.target - System Shutdown.
> > [ OK ] Reached target final.target - Late Shutdown Services.
> > [ OK ] Finished systemd-poweroff.service - System Power Off.
> > [ OK ] Reached target poweroff.target - System Power Off.
> > [ 52.948231] watchdog: watchdog0: watchdog did not stop!
> > [ 53.440970] EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p6): Inode 1 (b6b2dba9): inode tracked as orphan!
> > [ 53.449709] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 412 Comm: (sd-umount) Not tainted 6.12.52-00240-gf50bece98c66 #12
> > [ 53.449728] Hardware name: ti TI AM335x BeagleBone Black/TI AM335x BeagleBone Black, BIOS 2025.07 07/01/2025
> > [ 53.449740] Call trace:
> > [ 53.449757] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
> > [ 53.449807] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x74
> > [ 53.449839] dump_stack_lvl from ext4_destroy_inode+0x7c/0x10c
> > [ 53.449870] ext4_destroy_inode from destroy_inode+0x5c/0x70
> > [ 53.449897] destroy_inode from ext4_mb_release+0xc8/0x268
> > [ 53.449936] ext4_mb_release from ext4_put_super+0xe4/0x308
> > [ 53.449962] ext4_put_super from generic_shutdown_super+0x84/0x154
> > [ 53.449996] generic_shutdown_super from kill_block_super+0x18/0x34
> > [ 53.450023] kill_block_super from ext4_kill_sb+0x28/0x3c
> > [ 53.450059] ext4_kill_sb from deactivate_locked_super+0x58/0x90
> > [ 53.450086] deactivate_locked_super from cleanup_mnt+0x74/0xd0
> > [ 53.450113] cleanup_mnt from task_work_run+0x88/0xa0
> > [ 53.450136] task_work_run from do_work_pending+0x394/0x3cc
> > [ 53.450156] do_work_pending from slow_work_pending+0xc/0x24
> > [ 53.450175] Exception stack(0xe093dfb0 to 0xe093dff8)
> > [ 53.450190] dfa0: 00000000 00000009 00000000 00000000
> > [ 53.450205] dfc0: be9e0b2c 004e2aa0 be9e0a20 00000034 be9e0a04 00000000 be9e0a20 00000000
> > [ 53.450218] dfe0: 00000034 be9e095c b6ba609b b6b0f736 00030030 004e2ac0
> > [ 53.730379] reboot: Power down
> >
> > I'm not getting the warning with the same image but kernels 6.18+ or
> > also 6.17.13 (the latter received this as backport as well). I do get
> > the warning with 6.1.159 as well, and also when moving up to 6.12.63
> > which received further ext4 backports. I didn't test 6.6 or 5.15 so far,
> > but I suspect they are equally affected.
> >
> > Before digging deep into this to me unfamiliar subsystem: Could we miss
> > some backport(s) to 6.12 and below that 6.17+ have? Any suggestions to
> > try out first?
>
> I suspect you're missing 4091c8206cfd ("ext4: clear i_state_flags when
> alloc inode") (which BTW has Fixes tag to this commit).
That is queued up for the next round of stable releases. Hopefully the
-rc releases for them will go out in a day or so.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.12 242/262] ext4: fix checks for orphan inodes
2026-01-08 10:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2026-01-08 14:11 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2026-01-08 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Jan Kara
Cc: stable, Theodore Tso, patches, stable, Zhang Yi, linux-ext4,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, cip-dev
On 08.01.26 11:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:31:10AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Thu 08-01-26 09:19:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 13.10.25 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> 6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------
>>>>
>>>> From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>>>>
>>>> commit acf943e9768ec9d9be80982ca0ebc4bfd6b7631e upstream.
>>>>
>>>> When orphan file feature is enabled, inode can be tracked as orphan
>>>> either in the standard orphan list or in the orphan file. The first can
>>>> be tested by checking ei->i_orphan list head, the second is recorded by
>>>> EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE inode state flag. There are several places where
>>>> we want to check whether inode is tracked as orphan and only some of
>>>> them properly check for both possibilities. Luckily the consequences are
>>>> mostly minor, the worst that can happen is that we track an inode as
>>>> orphan although we don't need to and e2fsck then complains (resulting in
>>>> occasional ext4/307 xfstest failures). Fix the problem by introducing a
>>>> helper for checking whether an inode is tracked as orphan and use it in
>>>> appropriate places.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 4a79a98c7b19 ("ext4: Improve scalability of ext4 orphan file handling")
>>>> Cc: stable@kernel.org
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>>>> Message-ID: <20250925123038.20264-2-jack@suse.cz>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> fs/ext4/file.c | 2 +-
>>>> fs/ext4/inode.c | 2 +-
>>>> fs/ext4/orphan.c | 6 +-----
>>>> fs/ext4/super.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
>>>> @@ -1970,6 +1970,16 @@ static inline bool ext4_verity_in_progre
>>>> #define NEXT_ORPHAN(inode) EXT4_I(inode)->i_dtime
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> + * Check whether the inode is tracked as orphan (either in orphan file or
>>>> + * orphan list).
>>>> + */
>>>> +static inline bool ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(struct inode *inode)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
>>>> + !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> * Codes for operating systems
>>>> */
>>>> #define EXT4_OS_LINUX 0
>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
>>>> @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static void ext4_inode_extension_cleanup
>>>> * to cleanup the orphan list in ext4_handle_inode_extension(). Do it
>>>> * now.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (!list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan) && inode->i_nlink) {
>>>> + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode) && inode->i_nlink) {
>>>> handle_t *handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, EXT4_HT_INODE, 2);
>>>>
>>>> if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>>>> @@ -4330,7 +4330,7 @@ static int ext4_fill_raw_inode(struct in
>>>> * old inodes get re-used with the upper 16 bits of the
>>>> * uid/gid intact.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (ei->i_dtime && list_empty(&ei->i_orphan)) {
>>>> + if (ei->i_dtime && !ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
>>>> raw_inode->i_uid_high = 0;
>>>> raw_inode->i_gid_high = 0;
>>>> } else {
>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/orphan.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/orphan.c
>>>> @@ -109,11 +109,7 @@ int ext4_orphan_add(handle_t *handle, st
>>>>
>>>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!(inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING)) &&
>>>> !inode_is_locked(inode));
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * Inode orphaned in orphan file or in orphan list?
>>>> - */
>>>> - if (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORPHAN_FILE) ||
>>>> - !list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))
>>>> + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode))
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
>>>> @@ -1461,9 +1461,9 @@ static void ext4_free_in_core_inode(stru
>>>>
>>>> static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>>> {
>>>> - if (!list_empty(&(EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan))) {
>>>> + if (ext4_inode_orphan_tracked(inode)) {
>>>> ext4_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_ERR,
>>>> - "Inode %lu (%p): orphan list check failed!",
>>>> + "Inode %lu (%p): inode tracked as orphan!",
>>>> inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode));
>>>> print_hex_dump(KERN_INFO, "", DUMP_PREFIX_ADDRESS, 16, 4,
>>>> EXT4_I(inode), sizeof(struct ext4_inode_info),
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since this patch, I'm getting "inode tracked as orphan" warnings on ARM
>>> 32-bit boards (not qemu, other archs not tested yet) when rebooting or
>>> shutting down. The affected partition is used as backing storage for an
>>> overlayfs (Debian image built from [1]). Still, systemd reports to have
>>> sucessfully unmounted the partition.
>>>
>>> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-journal-flush.serv…lush Journal to Persistent Storage.
>>> [ OK ] Unmounted run-lock.mount - Legacy Locks Directory /run/lock.
>>> [ OK ] Unmounted tmp.mount - Temporary Directory /tmp.
>>> [ OK ] Stopped target swap.target - Swaps.
>>> Unmounting var.mount - /var...
>>> [ OK ] Unmounted var.mount - /var.
>>> [ OK ] Stopped target local-fs-pre.target…Preparation for Local File Systems.
>>> [ OK ] Reached target umount.target - Unmount All Filesystems.
>>> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-remount-fs.service…mount Root and Kernel File Systems.
>>> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…Create Static Device Nodes in /dev.
>>> [ OK ] Stopped systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev…ic Device Nodes in /dev gracefully.
>>> [ OK ] Reached target shutdown.target - System Shutdown.
>>> [ OK ] Reached target final.target - Late Shutdown Services.
>>> [ OK ] Finished systemd-poweroff.service - System Power Off.
>>> [ OK ] Reached target poweroff.target - System Power Off.
>>> [ 52.948231] watchdog: watchdog0: watchdog did not stop!
>>> [ 53.440970] EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p6): Inode 1 (b6b2dba9): inode tracked as orphan!
>>> [ 53.449709] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 412 Comm: (sd-umount) Not tainted 6.12.52-00240-gf50bece98c66 #12
>>> [ 53.449728] Hardware name: ti TI AM335x BeagleBone Black/TI AM335x BeagleBone Black, BIOS 2025.07 07/01/2025
>>> [ 53.449740] Call trace:
>>> [ 53.449757] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c
>>> [ 53.449807] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x74
>>> [ 53.449839] dump_stack_lvl from ext4_destroy_inode+0x7c/0x10c
>>> [ 53.449870] ext4_destroy_inode from destroy_inode+0x5c/0x70
>>> [ 53.449897] destroy_inode from ext4_mb_release+0xc8/0x268
>>> [ 53.449936] ext4_mb_release from ext4_put_super+0xe4/0x308
>>> [ 53.449962] ext4_put_super from generic_shutdown_super+0x84/0x154
>>> [ 53.449996] generic_shutdown_super from kill_block_super+0x18/0x34
>>> [ 53.450023] kill_block_super from ext4_kill_sb+0x28/0x3c
>>> [ 53.450059] ext4_kill_sb from deactivate_locked_super+0x58/0x90
>>> [ 53.450086] deactivate_locked_super from cleanup_mnt+0x74/0xd0
>>> [ 53.450113] cleanup_mnt from task_work_run+0x88/0xa0
>>> [ 53.450136] task_work_run from do_work_pending+0x394/0x3cc
>>> [ 53.450156] do_work_pending from slow_work_pending+0xc/0x24
>>> [ 53.450175] Exception stack(0xe093dfb0 to 0xe093dff8)
>>> [ 53.450190] dfa0: 00000000 00000009 00000000 00000000
>>> [ 53.450205] dfc0: be9e0b2c 004e2aa0 be9e0a20 00000034 be9e0a04 00000000 be9e0a20 00000000
>>> [ 53.450218] dfe0: 00000034 be9e095c b6ba609b b6b0f736 00030030 004e2ac0
>>> [ 53.730379] reboot: Power down
>>>
>>> I'm not getting the warning with the same image but kernels 6.18+ or
>>> also 6.17.13 (the latter received this as backport as well). I do get
>>> the warning with 6.1.159 as well, and also when moving up to 6.12.63
>>> which received further ext4 backports. I didn't test 6.6 or 5.15 so far,
>>> but I suspect they are equally affected.
>>>
>>> Before digging deep into this to me unfamiliar subsystem: Could we miss
>>> some backport(s) to 6.12 and below that 6.17+ have? Any suggestions to
>>> try out first?
>>
>> I suspect you're missing 4091c8206cfd ("ext4: clear i_state_flags when
>> alloc inode") (which BTW has Fixes tag to this commit).
>
> That is queued up for the next round of stable releases. Hopefully the
> -rc releases for them will go out in a day or so.
>
Perfect. It indeed looks like that this missing commit was causing the
issue.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread