Request for 3.18-stable: a63b03e2d247 ("mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()")

Request for 3.18-stable: a63b03e2d247 ("mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()")

[Tom Zanussi]

Hi Greg,

I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit bc07ee33284a ('Revert "drm/i915:
Fix mutex->owner inspection race under DEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which states
that the reason it can be applied is:

    The core fix was applied in
    
    commit a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
    Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Date:   Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000
    
        mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()
    
    (note the absence of stable@ tag)

    so we can now revert our band-aid commit 226e5ae9e5f910 for -next.


but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.

Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another 3.18
stable release.

Thanks,

Tom

Re: Request for 3.18-stable: a63b03e2d247 ("mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()")

[Sasha Levin]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 01:22:39PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>
>I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit bc07ee33284a ('Revert "drm/i915:
>Fix mutex->owner inspection race under DEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which states
>that the reason it can be applied is:
>
>    The core fix was applied in
>
>    commit a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
>    Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>    Date:   Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000
>
>        mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()
>
>    (note the absence of stable@ tag)
>
>    so we can now revert our band-aid commit 226e5ae9e5f910 for -next.
>
>
>but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.
>
>Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another 3.18
>stable release.

Unless someone can ack that commit for stable (since it specifically
states it shouldn't be included), I'd rather revert bc07ee33284a - it
shouldn't have been merged in to begin with.

--
Thanks,
Sasha

Re: Request for 3.18-stable: a63b03e2d247 ("mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()")

[Tom Zanussi]

On Sat, 2018-11-17 at 08:29 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 01:22:39PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit bc07ee33284a ('Revert
> > "drm/i915:
> > Fix mutex->owner inspection race under DEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which
> > states
> > that the reason it can be applied is:
> > 
> >    The core fix was applied in
> > 
> >    commit a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
> >    Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >    Date:   Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000
> > 
> >        mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()
> > 
> >    (note the absence of stable@ tag)
> > 
> >    so we can now revert our band-aid commit 226e5ae9e5f910 for
> > -next.
> > 
> > 
> > but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.
> > 
> > Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another
> > 3.18
> > stable release.
> 
> Unless someone can ack that commit for stable (since it specifically
> states it shouldn't be included), I'd rather revert bc07ee33284a - it
> shouldn't have been merged in to begin with.
> 

Yeah, I agree that probably makes more sense - I think I misinterpreted
the meaning of 'note the absence of stable@ tag'.

Thanks,

Tom