FAILED: patch "[PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

[gregkh]

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-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-5.10.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 452690be7de2f91cc0de68cb9e95252875b33503
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025082203-populate-sublease-ef51@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:



thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 452690be7de2f91cc0de68cb9e95252875b33503 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 19:28:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits

This modification is linked to the parent commit where the received
ADD_ADDR limit was accidentally reset when the endpoints were flushed.

To validate that, the test is now flushing endpoints after having set
new limits, and before checking them.

The 'Fixes' tag here below is the same as the one from the previous
commit: this patch here is not fixing anything wrong in the selftests,
but it validates the previous fix for an issue introduced by this commit
ID.

Fixes: 01cacb00b35c ("mptcp: add netlink-based PM")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250815-net-mptcp-misc-fixes-6-17-rc2-v1-3-521fe9957892@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh
index 2e6648a2b2c0..ac7ec6f94023 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ set_limits 1 9 2>/dev/null
 check "get_limits" "${default_limits}" "subflows above hard limit"
 
 set_limits 8 8
+flush_endpoint  ## to make sure it doesn't affect the limits
 check "get_limits" "$(format_limits 8 8)" "set limits"
 
 flush_endpoint

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Greg,

On 22/08/2025 08:05, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> 
> The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.

Thank you for the notification!

> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> 
> From 452690be7de2f91cc0de68cb9e95252875b33503 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@kernel.org>
> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 19:28:21 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits
> 
> This modification is linked to the parent commit where the received
> ADD_ADDR limit was accidentally reset when the endpoints were flushed.
> 
> To validate that, the test is now flushing endpoints after having set
> new limits, and before checking them.
> 
> The 'Fixes' tag here below is the same as the one from the previous
> commit: this patch here is not fixing anything wrong in the selftests,
> but it validates the previous fix for an issue introduced by this commit
> ID.

The upstream's parent patch has not been queued in v5.10 yet, but I
already got this FAILED notification for this patch here. I guess some
conflicts on your side prevent you to send the last batch of fixes for
v5.10, but they will come at some points. I'm going to send a resolution
for this backport here, because I have it: I hope that's OK.

(Worst case if this patch is applied and not the parent one: the
selftests will complain the parent patch is missing, which would serve
as a reminder somehow, so that's probably OK :) )

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.

[PATCH 5.10.y] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits

[Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)]

commit 452690be7de2f91cc0de68cb9e95252875b33503 upstream.

This modification is linked to the parent commit where the received
ADD_ADDR limit was accidentally reset when the endpoints were flushed.

To validate that, the test is now flushing endpoints after having set
new limits, and before checking them.

The 'Fixes' tag here below is the same as the one from the previous
commit: this patch here is not fixing anything wrong in the selftests,
but it validates the previous fix for an issue introduced by this commit
ID.

Fixes: 01cacb00b35c ("mptcp: add netlink-based PM")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250815-net-mptcp-misc-fixes-6-17-rc2-v1-3-521fe9957892@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
[ Conflicts in pm_netlink.sh, because some refactoring have been done
  later on: commit 3188309c8ceb ("selftests: mptcp: netlink:
  add 'limits' helpers") and commit c99d57d0007a ("selftests: mptcp: use
  pm_nl endpoint ops") are not in this version. The same operation can
  still be done at the same place, without using the new helper. ]
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
---
Note: this patch is validating the upstream's parent patch, commit
68fc0f4b0d25 ("mptcp: pm: kernel: flush: do not reset ADD_ADDR limit"),
which has not been queued in the v5.10 queue yet. I'm already sending
this patch, because I got the FAILED notification, and the resolution is
the same as previous patches I sent earlier today.
---
 tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh
index fff6f74ebe16..7d194f5c2939 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.sh
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ ip netns exec $ns1 ./pm_nl_ctl limits 1 9
 check "ip netns exec $ns1 ./pm_nl_ctl limits" "$default_limits" "subflows above hard limit"
 
 ip netns exec $ns1 ./pm_nl_ctl limits 8 8
+ip netns exec $ns1 ./pm_nl_ctl flush
 check "ip netns exec $ns1 ./pm_nl_ctl limits" "accept 8
 subflows 8" "set limits"
 
-- 
2.50.0

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 22/08/2025 08:05, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > 
> > The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
> 
> Thank you for the notification!
> 
> > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> > 
> > From 452690be7de2f91cc0de68cb9e95252875b33503 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@kernel.org>
> > Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 19:28:21 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] selftests: mptcp: pm: check flush doesn't reset limits
> > 
> > This modification is linked to the parent commit where the received
> > ADD_ADDR limit was accidentally reset when the endpoints were flushed.
> > 
> > To validate that, the test is now flushing endpoints after having set
> > new limits, and before checking them.
> > 
> > The 'Fixes' tag here below is the same as the one from the previous
> > commit: this patch here is not fixing anything wrong in the selftests,
> > but it validates the previous fix for an issue introduced by this commit
> > ID.
> 
> The upstream's parent patch has not been queued in v5.10 yet, but I
> already got this FAILED notification for this patch here. I guess some
> conflicts on your side prevent you to send the last batch of fixes for
> v5.10, but they will come at some points. I'm going to send a resolution
> for this backport here, because I have it: I hope that's OK.
> 
> (Worst case if this patch is applied and not the parent one: the
> selftests will complain the parent patch is missing, which would serve
> as a reminder somehow, so that's probably OK :) )

Yes, sorry, I haven't caught up on pending 5.10.y patches yet, thanks
for the backport.

greg k-h