Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/24] 5.4.98-rc1 review
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:02:23PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.98 release. > There are 24 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. > Compiled and booted with no regressions on x86_64. Tested-by: Ross Schmidt thanks, Ross
Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/24] 5.4.98-rc1 review
On 2/11/2021 7:02 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.98 release. > There are 24 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 Sat, 13 Feb 2021 15:01:39 +. > 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-5.4.98-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-5.4.y > and the diffstat can be found below. On ARCH_BRCMSTB, 32-bit ARM and 64-bit ARM: Tested-by: Florian Fainelli -- Florian
Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/24] 5.4.98-rc1 review
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:02:23PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.98 release. > There are 24 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 Sat, 13 Feb 2021 15:01:39 +. > Anything received after that time might be too late. > Build results: total: 157 pass: 157 fail: 0 Qemu test results: total: 427 pass: 427 fail: 0 Tested-by: Guenter Roeck Guenter
Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/24] 5.4.98-rc1 review
On 2/11/21 8:02 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.98 release. There are 24 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 Sat, 13 Feb 2021 15:01:39 +. 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-5.4.98-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-5.4.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 thanks, -- Shuah
Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/24] 5.4.98-rc1 review
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 20:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.98 release.
> There are 24 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 Sat, 13 Feb 2021 15:01:39 +.
> 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-5.4.98-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-5.4.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
NOTE:
The following lockdep warning was found during the arm64 db410c boot.
And this is easily reproducible.
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.4.98-rc1 #1 Not tainted
kworker/1:1/31 is trying to acquire lock:
0eb36940 (regulator_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}, at:
create_regulator+0x23c/0x360
This was noticed on Linux next and reported on linux arm msm mailing list.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CA+G9fYunK_2h3-pHtZT_+56Xf8b=m-8q9gntscj3kxvajul...@mail.gmail.com/
Summary
kernel: 5.4.98-rc1
git repo:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
git branch: linux-5.4.y
git commit: 539f3bba2f5bb16b852f7d0cf50f8d39d0c4c4e3
git describe: v5.4.97-25-g539f3bba2f5b
Test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.97-25-g539f3bba2f5b
No regressions (compared to build v5.4.97)
No fixes (compared to build v5.4.97)
Ran 51109 total tests in the following environments and test suites.
Environments
--
- arc
- arm
- arm64
- dragonboard-410c
- hi6220-hikey
- i386
- juno-r2
- juno-r2-compat
- juno-r2-kasan
- mips
- nxp-ls2088
- nxp-ls2088-64k_page_size
- parisc
- powerpc
- qemu-arm-clang
- qemu-arm64-clang
- qemu-arm64-kasan
- qemu-x86_64-clang
- qemu-x86_64-kasan
- qemu-x86_64-kcsan
- qemu_arm
- qemu_arm64
- qemu_arm64-compat
- qemu_i386
- qemu_x86_64
- qemu_x86_64-compat
- riscv
- s390
- sh
- sparc
- x15
- x86
- x86-kasan
- x86_64
Test Suites
---
* build
* linux-log-parser
* install-android-platform-tools-r2600
* kselftest-android
* kselftest-bpf
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-intel_pstate
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-lkdtm
* 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-zram
* libhugetlbfs
* ltp-cap_bounds-tests
* ltp-commands-tests
* ltp-cpuhotplug-tests
* ltp-crypto-tests
* ltp-dio-tests
* ltp-hugetlb-tests
* ltp-io-tests
* ltp-ipc-tests
* ltp-math-tests
* ltp-mm-tests
* ltp-nptl-tests
* ltp-pty-tests
* ltp-securebits-tests
* perf
* fwts
* kselftest-efivarfs
* kselftest-filesystems
* kselftest-firmware
* kselftest-fpu
* kselftest-futex
* kselftest-gpio
* kselftest-ipc
* kselftest-ir
* kselftest-kcmp
* kselftest-lib
* kselftest-membarrier
* kselftest-memfd
* kselftest-memory-hotplug
* kselftest-mincore
* kselftest-mount
* kselftest-mqueue
* kselftest-net
* kselftest-netfilter
* kselftest-nsfs
* kselftest-openat2
* kselftest-pid_namespace
* kselftest-pidfd
* kselftest-proc
* kselftest-pstore
* kselftest-tc-testing
* kvm-unit-tests
* ltp-containers-tests
* ltp-cve-tests
* ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests
* ltp-filecaps-tests
* ltp-fs_bind-tests
* ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests
* ltp-fsx-tests
* ltp-sched-tests
* ltp-syscalls-tests
* network-basic-tests
* v4l2-compliance
* kselftest-kexec
* kselftest-kvm
* kselftest-vm
* kselftest-x86
* ltp-controllers-tests
* ltp-fs-tests
* ltp-open-posix-tests
* ltp-tracing-tests
* rcutorture
* kselftest-
* kselftest-vsyscall-mode-native-
* ssuite
* timesync-off
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/24] 5.4.98-rc1 review
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 20:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.98 release.
> There are 24 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 Sat, 13 Feb 2021 15:01:39 +.
> 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-5.4.98-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-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
The following lockdep warning was found during the arm64 db410c boot.
And this is easily reproducible.
This was noticed on Linux next and reported on linux arm msm mailing list.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CA+G9fYunK_2h3-pHtZT_+56Xf8b=m-8q9gntscj3kxvajul...@mail.gmail.com/
> David Collins
> regulator: core: avoid regulator_resolve_supply() race condition
[3.982889] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[3.988186] 5.4.98-rc1 #1 Not tainted
[3.993477]
[3.997041] kworker/1:1/31 is trying to acquire lock:
[4.002421] 0eb36940 (regulator_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}, at:
create_regulator+0x23c/0x360
[4.007372]
[4.007372] but task is already holding lock:
[4.011044] mmc1: SDHCI controller on 7864900.sdhci [7864900.sdhci]
using ADMA 64-bit
[4.015874] 3a9d8940 (regulator_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}, at:
regulator_resolve_supply+0xbc/0x330
[4.015887]
[4.015887] other info that might help us debug this:
[4.015890] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[4.015890]
[4.015893]CPU0
[4.015895]
[4.015897] lock(regulator_ww_class_mutex);
[4.015903] lock(regulator_ww_class_mutex);
[4.026541] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: EHCI Host Controller
[4.029681]
[4.029681] *** DEADLOCK ***
[4.029681]
[4.029684] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[4.029684]
[4.029688] 5 locks held by kworker/1:1/31:
[4.029691] #0: 0eb24928 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.},
at: process_one_work+0x1fc/0x758
[4.029709] #1: 800013203de8
((work_completion)(>state_work)){+.+.}, at:
process_one_work+0x1fc/0x758
[4.039092] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
[4.045388] #2: 3a91c160 (>mutex){}, at:
__device_attach+0x4c/0x178
[4.045402] #3: 3a91d170 (>mutex){}, at:
__device_attach+0x4c/0x178
[4.045416] #4: 3a9d8940 (regulator_ww_class_mutex){+.+.},
at: regulator_resolve_supply+0xbc/0x330
[4.066243] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: USB 2.0 started, EHCI 1.00
[4.069606]
[4.069606] stack backtrace:
[4.069614] CPU: 1 PID: 31 Comm: kworker/1:1 Not tainted 5.4.98-rc1 #1
[4.077634] hub 1-0:1.0: USB hub found
[4.082453] Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. APQ 8016 SBC (DT)
[4.082464] Workqueue: events qcom_channel_state_worker
[4.082469] Call trace:
[4.082476] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x188
[4.082481] show_stack+0x24/0x30
[4.082488] dump_stack+0xe8/0x168
[4.082494] __lock_acquire+0xd80/0x1458
[4.082501] lock_acquire+0xe8/0x270
[4.086663] hub 1-0:1.0: 1 port detected
[4.095487] __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.15+0xbc/0xf60
[4.095494] ww_mutex_lock+0x98/0x3a0
[4.095500] create_regulator+0x23c/0x360
[4.095505] regulator_resolve_supply+0x1ac/0x330
[4.095512] regulator_register_resolve_supply+0x24/0x80
[4.123419] mmc0: new HS200 MMC card at address 0001
[4.128297] class_for_each_device+0x78/0xf8
[4.128303] regulator_register+0x8c4/0xb40
[4.128310] devm_regulator_register+0x50/0xa8
[4.128317] rpm_reg_probe+0x108/0x1c0
[4.128325] platform_drv_probe+0x58/0xa8
[4.139377] mmcblk0: mmc0:0001 DS1008 7.28 GiB
[4.143393] really_probe+0x290/0x498
[4.143398] driver_probe_device+0x12c/0x148
[4.143404] __device_attach_driver+0xa4/0x120
[4.143411] bus_for_each_drv+0x78/0xd8
[4.143416] __device_attach+0xf0/0x178
[4.143421] device_initial_probe+0x24/0x30
[4.143429] bus_probe_device+0xa0/0xa8
[4.148410] mmcblk0boot0: mmc0:0001 DS1008 partition 1 4.00 MiB
[4.154157] device_add+0x3fc/0x660
[4.154163] of_device_add+0x50/0x68
[4.154170] of_platform_device_create_pdata+0xf0/0x170
[4.154175] of_platform_bus_create+0x174/0x550
[4.154181] of_platform_populate+0x8c/0x148
[4.154189] qcom_smd_rpm_probe+0x88/0xa0
[4.158693] mmcblk0boot1: mmc0:0001 DS1008 partition 2 4.00 MiB
[4.164749] rpmsg_dev_probe+0x124/0x1b0
[4.164755] really_probe+0x290/0x498
[4.164760] driver_probe_device+0x12c/0x148
[4.164766] __device_attach_driver+0xa4/0x120
[4.164772] bus_for_each_drv+0x78/0xd8
[
