[PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

Greg Kroah-Hartman posted 3 patches 4 years, 4 months ago
Makefile                      | 4 ++--
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c      | 2 ++
crypto/algapi.c               | 1 +
crypto/api.c                  | 1 -
drivers/mmc/host/moxart-mmc.c | 2 +-
5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
[PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Greg Kroah-Hartman 4 years, 4 months ago
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
let me know.

Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
Anything received after that time might be too late.

The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.100-rc1.gz
or in the git tree and branch at:
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
and the diffstat can be found below.

thanks,

greg k-h

-------------
Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    Linux 5.10.100-rc1

Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
    crypto: api - Move cryptomgr soft dependency into algapi

Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
    KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal guest

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    moxart: fix potential use-after-free on remove path


-------------

Diffstat:

 Makefile                      | 4 ++--
 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c      | 2 ++
 crypto/algapi.c               | 1 +
 crypto/api.c                  | 1 -
 drivers/mmc/host/moxart-mmc.c | 2 +-
 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Slade Watkins 4 years, 4 months ago
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, at 2:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.

Compiled and booted 5.10.100-rc1 on my x86_64 test system successfully without errors or regressions.

Tested-by: Slade Watkins <slade@sladewatkins.com>

Thanks,
Slade
Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Florian Fainelli 4 years, 4 months ago

On 2/9/2022 11:14 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.100-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

On ARCH_BRCMSTB using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels:

Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
-- 
Florian

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Guenter Roeck 4 years, 4 months ago
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:14:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

Build results:
	total: 161 pass: 161 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
	total: 477 pass: 477 fail: 0

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Guenter
Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Samuel Zou 4 years, 4 months ago

On 2022/2/10 3:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.100-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Tested on arm64 and x86 for 5.10.100-rc1,

Kernel repo:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Branch: linux-5.10.y
Version: 5.10.100-rc1
Commit: f1b074cc52b4cb5f2f78985508ae344e6f066252
Compiler: gcc version 7.3.0 (GCC)

arm64:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testcase Result Summary:
total: 9013
passed: 9013
failed: 0
timeout: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

x86:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testcase Result Summary:
total: 9013
passed: 9013
failed: 0
timeout: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Tested-by: Hulk Robot <hulkrobot@huawei.com>
Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Pavel Machek 4 years, 4 months ago
Hi!

> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.

CIP testing did not find any new kernel problems here (but we still
hit the gmp.h compilation issue):

https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-5.10.y

Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de>

Best regards,
                                                                Pavel
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Shuah Khan 4 years, 4 months ago
On 2/9/22 12:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.100-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions.

Tested-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Naresh Kamboju 4 years, 4 months ago
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 00:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.100-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Results from Linaro’s test farm.
No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.

Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>

## Build
* kernel: 5.10.100-rc1
* git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
* git branch: linux-5.10.y
* git commit: f1b074cc52b4cb5f2f78985508ae344e6f066252
* git describe: v5.10.98-79-gf1b074cc52b4
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/build/v5.10.98-79-gf1b074cc52b4

## Test Regressions (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No test regressions found.

## Metric Regressions (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No metric regressions found.

## Test Fixes (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No test fixes found.

## Metric Fixes (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No metric fixes found.

## Test result summary
total: 76874, pass: 66765, fail: 223, skip: 9288, xfail: 598

## Build Summary
* arc: 10 total, 10 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 259 total, 259 passed, 0 failed
* arm64: 37 total, 37 passed, 0 failed
* i386: 35 total, 35 passed, 0 failed
* mips: 34 total, 34 passed, 0 failed
* sparc: 12 total, 12 passed, 0 failed
* x86_64: 25 total, 25 passed, 0 failed

## Test suites summary
* fwts
* igt-gpu-tools
* kselftest-android
* kselftest-arm64
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_c_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_j_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_jc_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_none_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.nohint_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.paciasp_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_c_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_j_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_jc_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_none_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.nohint_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.paciasp_func
* kselftest-breakpoints
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-drivers
* kselftest-efivarfs
* kselftest-filesystems
* kselftest-firmware
* kselftest-fpu
* kselftest-futex
* kselftest-gpio
* kselftest-intel_pstate
* kselftest-ipc
* kselftest-ir
* kselftest-kcmp
* kselftest-kvm
* kselftest-lib
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-membarrier
* kselftest-openat2
* kselftest-pid_namespace
* kselftest-pidfd
* kselftest-proc
* kselftest-pstore
* kselftest-ptrace
* kselftest-rseq
* kselftest-rtc
* kselftest-seccomp
* kselftest-sigaltstack
* kselftest-size
* kselftest-splice
* kselftest-static_keys
* kselftest-sync
* kselftest-sysctl
* kselftest-timens
* kselftest-timers
* kselftest-tmpfs
* kselftest-tpm2
* kselftest-user
* kselftest-vm
* kselftest-x86
* kselftest-zram
* kunit
* kvm-unit-tests
* libgpiod
* libhugetlbfs
* linux-log-parser
* ltp-cap_bounds-tests
* ltp-commands-tests
* ltp-containers-tests
* ltp-controllers-tests
* ltp-cpuhotplug-tests
* ltp-crypto-tests
* ltp-cve-tests
* ltp-dio-tests
* ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests
* ltp-filecaps-tests
* ltp-fs-tests
* ltp-fs_bind-tests
* ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests
* ltp-fsx-tests
* ltp-hugetlb-tests
* ltp-io-tests
* ltp-ipc-tests
* ltp-math-tests
* ltp-mm-tests
* ltp-nptl-tests
* ltp-open-posix-tests
* ltp-pty-tests
* ltp-sched-tests
* ltp-securebits-tests
* ltp-syscalls-tests
* ltp-tracing-tests
* network-basic-tests
* packetdrill
* perf
* rcutorture
* ssuite
* v4l2-compliance

--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review
Posted by Sudip Mukherjee 4 years, 4 months ago
Hi Greg,

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:14:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.

Build test:
mips (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 63 configs -> no new failure
arm (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 105 configs -> no new failure
arm64 (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 3 configs -> no failure
x86_64 (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 4 configs -> no failure

Boot test:
x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. No regression.
x86_64: Booted on qemu. No regression. [1]
arm64: Booted on rpi4b (4GB model). No regression. [2]

[1]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/734
[2]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/738


Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>

--
Regards
Sudip