From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 673432B9A9; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719330325; cv=none; b=SvGnDVl6zPYzyYBecQbj28ruEHlaqlW8arrccnM9tyhQ8hDih98ENTF+033igIY3qqxqklpa/pjPvzuvdq7lqwYPYV77JqIkGb+MLSNjKNfSr89D7zWDSXQUUewHu0RTxvELhL5TmyrRCqMJ8qyJ3vFeUmFzwFPCGx+ODw0A1Tk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719330325; c=relaxed/simple; bh=r+PRJWYLRDllectdaf+odPBtSiWRe1QMpN4EavcotQ4=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=goQeRVJXIs0P77/P+CwqxcF/Y2hIhCW7OX7XWBLmnmpQQkIZccJ5XFqe7SBcEu4MaFCfvpajXarx8ENXh4PpjnLTL/HXl0qyuTZTZGTSWmc5lTtaYs3/kZo3MsG9OVmzNt1UgyLLzDuxVElxiTaRAAp+Vy6SsK0SwwmOkyD3TPM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=cGfY4+Fo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="cGfY4+Fo" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D66A7C32786; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:45:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1719330324; bh=r+PRJWYLRDllectdaf+odPBtSiWRe1QMpN4EavcotQ4=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cGfY4+FoXqIA4FflNVh+ju8kaGymetI8fE6m+ky+14paDZ0yWrF21FTDL9O6WgD5r 1YNJWC/gaBOFQvw76e6wyI6lbW+PGBGoL7kOLwPaYU+yQwla8a5c7QtgaAweaoirl0 ETq7gxTbtExKx2S2bEWrrRuyznuqwTXMT3zpjofd7Zx0bdvFcxADCi9qwumnho3DGe JpD9zDN4QRlsiigFpv5KRNep3lhf7XmCurp3DKIh64Eo0KfN1OdY9XYwUlr9sdCmM6 zu/EB/v1VXtc8tO22+bvC7hh7IixVJ0DLkPQsqcj5A8NEkccTiWhtY3kAiICUG13oT INO+9mCOXdiFw== Message-ID: <3afa32d75feeae84d894e7e71ce8e24372df78f3.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 762/770] nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from nfsd_put() From: Jeff Layton To: Dominique Martinet , Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, NeilBrown , Chuck Lever , Sasha Levin , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:45:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20240618123407.280171066@linuxfoundation.org> <20240618123436.685336265@linuxfoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, 2024-06-24 at 13:14 +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Hi Greg, >=20 > (+Jeff & linux-nfs in Ccs) >=20 > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:40:15PM +0200: > > [ Upstream commit 9f28a971ee9fdf1bf8ce8c88b103f483be610277 ] >=20 > Playing with dyad in the 'vulns' repo, I noticed this commit got > reverted in the 6.1 tree by pure chance as I just happened to test it > on > a related commit and wondered why the 6.1 kernel was listed twice: > b2c545c39877 ("Revert "nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from > nfsd_put()"") > db5f2f4db8b7 ("Revert "nfsd: call nfsd_last_thread() before final > nfsd_put()"") >=20 > See this thread for the discussion that caused that revert: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/e341cb408b5663d8c91b8fa57b41bb984be43448.came= l@kernel.org/ >=20 >=20 > What made me look is that they got in 5.10/15 (without revert): >=20 > 5.10 tree (since v5.10.220) > 838a602db75d ("nfsd: call nfsd_last_thread() before final > nfsd_put()") > d31cd25f5501 ("nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from nfsd_put()") >=20 > 5.15 tree (since v5.15.154) > c52fee7a1f98 ("nfsd: call nfsd_last_thread() before final > nfsd_put()") > 56e5eeff6cfa ("nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from nfsd_put()") >=20 >=20 > I considered trying to revert them as well, but it looks like they've > been fixed by this commit (upstream id): > 64e6304169f1 ("nfsd: drop the nfsd_put helper") > which wasn't in 6.1, so perhaps that's all there is to it and I'm > worried too much? >=20 > Jeff, you're the one who suggested reverting the two back then, sorry > to > dump it on you but do you remember the kind of problems you ran into? > Is there any chance it would have gone unoticed in the 5.15 tree for > 2.5 months? (5.15.154 was April 2024) >=20 Sorry, I don't think I kept a record of that panic that I hit at the time. I do think that I looked at the original bug report and it looked like it was probably the same problem, but I don't remember the details. I think I just mentioned reverting them because I didn't see the benefit in taking those into an old kernel. These are privileged anyway, so even if they are bugs I don't seem them as particularly critical. > (Bonus question: if that is really all there is, would that make > sense > / should we take the commits back in 6.1 with that extra fix?) >=20 >=20 >=20 Maybe? The problem is that someone has to do the testing for this. These interfaces aren't currently part of any testsuite, so a lot of that tends to be a manual effort. =20 --=20 Jeff Layton