Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 08:37:36AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> > >
> > > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> > >
> > > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> > > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > > git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> > > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > > git commit -s
> > > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..
> >
> > FWIW, this patch applies cleanly for me to the top of 6.14.y if you
> > simply apply all 5 patches in the series, all of which are CC stable.
> > AKA these commands work
> >
> > git checkout v6.14.1 # Current linux-6.14.y
> > git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d
> >
> > Where you start getting a conflict is if you also take this patch from mainline:
> >
> > e3121298c7fc arm64: Modify _midr_range() functions to read MIDR/REVIDR
> > internally
> >
> > The merge conflict between those two series was resolved upstream in:
> >
> > edb0e8f6e2e1 Merge tag 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm
> 
> I tried again as of today's linux-6.14.y (which is 6.14.2), and the
> patches still apply cleanly. I can send all 5 patches to the lists if
> it's desired, but I'm uncertain if it's required since they all apply
> cleanly. Just "git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d". They all
> apply cleanly all the way back to 5.15 as far as I can tell. Would I
> need to send the same 5 clean picks in response to every stable kernel
> from 5.15 all the way to 6.14?

I see all but the last one in the stable queues right now, let me try
the last one...

Ok, that one also applied from 5.15.y and newer.

> These patches don't apply cleanly to 5.4, but that's because kernel
> 5.4 doesn't have `proton-pack.c`, so presumably none of the Spectre
> mitigations were ported back that far.
> 
> Some of the spectre stuff is present in 5.10, but it looks like not
> all patches are being picked there. It's probably not critical to
> support newer ARM cores there, but changing the default to say cores
> are vulnerable might be worth it? What do folks think?a

That's up to you.

thanks,

greg k-h