On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 10:02:40AM -0500, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi Salvatore,
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 2:40 AM Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 08:26:05AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:23:59PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > > Hi Luiz,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:53:50PM -0500, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 12:29 PM Thorsten Leemhuis
> > > > > <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 31.10.24 07:33, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:30:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 12.06.24 14:04, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:18:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On 03.06.24 22:03, Mike wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On 29.05.24 11:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> [...]
> > > > > > >>>>> I understand that 6.9-rc5[1] worked fine, but I guess it will take some
> > > > > > >>>>> time to be
> > > > > > >>>>> included in Debian stable, so having a patch for 6.1.x will be much
> > > > > > >>>>> appreciated.
> > > > > > >>>>> I do not have the time to follow the vanilla (latest) release as is
> > > > > > >>>>> likely the case for
> > > > > > >>>>> many other Linux users.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Still no reaction from the bluetooth developers. Guess they are busy
> > > > > > >>>> and/or do not care about 6.1.y. In that case:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> @Greg: do you might have an idea how the 6.1.y commit a13f316e90fdb1
> > > > > > >>>> ("Bluetooth: hci_conn: Consolidate code for aborting connections") might
> > > > > > >>>> cause this or if it's missing some per-requisite? If not I wonder if
> > > > > > >>>> reverting that patch from 6.1.y might be the best move to resolve this
> > > > > > >>>> regression. Mike earlier in
> > > > > > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c947e600-e126-43ea-9530-0389206bef5e@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > > >>>> confirmed that this fixed the problem in tests. Jeremy (who started the
> > > > > > >>>> thread and afaics has the same problem) did not reply.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> How was this reverted? I get a bunch of conflicts as this commit was
> > > > > > >>> added as a dependency of a patch later in the series.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So if this wants to be reverted from 6.1.y, can someone send me the
> > > > > > >>> revert that has been tested to work?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Mike, can you help out here, as you apparently managed a revert earlier?
> > > > > > >> Without you or someone else submitting a revert I fear this won't be
> > > > > > >> resolved...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trying to reboostrap this, as people running 6.1.112 based kernel
> > > > > > > seems still hitting the issue, but have not asked yet if it happens as
> > > > > > > well for 6.114.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/1086447
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike, since I guess you are still as well affected as well, does the
> > > > > > > issue trigger on 6.1.114 for you and does reverting changes from
> > > > > > > a13f316e90fdb1 still fix the issue? Can you send your
> > > > > > > backport/changes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm, no reply. Is there maybe someone in that bug that could create and
> > > > > > test a new revert to finally get this resolved upstream? Seem we
> > > > > > otherwise are kinda stuck here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like we didn't tag things like 5af1f84ed13a ("Bluetooth:
> > > > > hci_sync: Fix UAF on hci_abort_conn_sync") and a239110ee8e0
> > > > > ("Bluetooth: hci_sync: always check if connection is alive before
> > > > > deleting") that are actually fixes to a13f316e90fdb1.
> > > >
> > > > Ah good I see :). None of those were yet applied to the 6.1.y series
> > > > were the issue is still presend. Would you be up to provide the needed
> > > > changes to the stable team? That would be very much appreciated for
> > > > those affected running the 6.1.y series.
> > >
> > > We would need backports for these as they do not apply cleanly :(
> >
> > Looks our mails overlapped, yes came to the same conclusion as I tried
> > to apply them on top of 6.1.y. I hope Luiz can help here.
> >
> > We have defintively users in Debian affected by this, and two
> > confirmed that using a newer kernel which contains naturally those
> > fixes do not expose the problem. If we have backports I might be able
> > to convice those affected users to test our 6.1.115-1 + patches to
> > verify the issue is gone.
>
> Then perhaps it is easier to just revert that change?
Please send a revert then.
thanks,
greg k-h
