From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1B4413B29F for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709123470; cv=none; b=UiaJhR5RAgnfstGAj2RPvlyp86PFlp5GJaI4yWOqNvH4DDeltSluNFoJ9FhOj+qZYBHTCSkUs1LUv39EcjbGhH5MhIkZI8Q0q91GKOxQKtKfTNFVxUbvWxI76A5Y4dB4xZYWb+TfciRpLkBGRIO7byvRwU1BpwS85fpuw+GYfvE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709123470; c=relaxed/simple; bh=B6B5qbwsu02wLwk7JqcnhaNSetR2oVpqkqUFAl1Y6ys=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=A97Ro4CU6gFUXUIYgarKnYuOQCpHhs5gLLBNQjZ/pyytdt1WiMZ77EU+hf2xuSTeb49YRsjUEzUCXmsS3CsXJ+4eOBF53yF/8s5z5oa5YD811cXfUZMpSsQRhXSqBIO1kMY5wJu2TrT05prSrHAKYAhv9DFZWich+Qh6C0D9lyo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=RTBCD2TG; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=RTBCD2TG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="RTBCD2TG"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="RTBCD2TG" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3B521EF4; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:31:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1709123466; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FvGUREEPpmxQWTsLz8XuGTyDXHJu/eo1aXg75bkSMmE=; b=RTBCD2TGarpeTNhEx/iGBvxWWnWkNz/t/uY1ZNeM7gUU4fYcEioF/aOajzGJAVwJaycWlK tcoEA7D7buv9e6I8GUGwBmdRyShhauxAQkOcfy8bYw4L959qJmDalNV7fHDzjswUShnHCU vCfM5D6I2uLg+Yq+U2WokkbDzdwV3P0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1709123466; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FvGUREEPpmxQWTsLz8XuGTyDXHJu/eo1aXg75bkSMmE=; b=RTBCD2TGarpeTNhEx/iGBvxWWnWkNz/t/uY1ZNeM7gUU4fYcEioF/aOajzGJAVwJaycWlK tcoEA7D7buv9e6I8GUGwBmdRyShhauxAQkOcfy8bYw4L959qJmDalNV7fHDzjswUShnHCU vCfM5D6I2uLg+Yq+U2WokkbDzdwV3P0= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F1C013A58; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id ZfZbHIon32VYVwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:31:06 +0000 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:31:05 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Greg KH Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, hughd@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] memcg: fix use-after-free in uncharge_batch" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree Message-ID: References: <2024022759-crave-busily-bef7@gregkh> <2024022704-overjoyed-display-b5cb@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Level: Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=RTBCD2TG X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.68 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.com:s=susede1]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[8]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.com:dkim]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-1.67)[92.91%] X-Spam-Score: -2.68 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9F3B521EF4 X-Spam-Flag: NO On Tue 27-02-24 16:49:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 27-02-24 14:32:20, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Why is this applied to 5.4? > > > $ git describe-ver 1a3e1f40962c > > > v5.9-rc1~97^2~97 > > > > > > I do not see 1a3e1f40962c in 5.4 stable tree. What am I missing? > > > > It is queued up for this next round of releases in the 5.4.y and 4.19.y > > trees. > > OK, now I remember the partial backport of 1a3e1f40962c > (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240222030237.82486-1-gongruiqi1@huawei.com) > but I need to have a look whether the follow up patch is really needed. AFAICS f1796544a0ca ("memcg: fix use-after-free in uncharge_batch") is only needed if the full 1a3e1f40962c is backported. The one staged for 5.4 shouldn't need a follow up as it only touches the pcp cache. I would feel safer if other maintainers double check my thinking though. Thanks -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs