Hello, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sasha Levin" <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [tip: efi/urgent] efi: Add a sanity check to efivar_store_raw() > > Hi > > [This is an automated email] > > This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag. > The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all > > The bot has tested the following trees: v5.5.8, v5.4.24, v4.19.108, > v4.14.172, v4.9.215, v4.4.215. > > v5.5.8: Build OK! > v5.4.24: Build OK! > v4.19.108: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > 98f76206b335 ("compat: Cleanup in_compat_syscall() callers") > > v4.14.172: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > 98f76206b335 ("compat: Cleanup in_compat_syscall() callers") > ea2ce8f3514e ("time: Fix get_timespec64() for y2038 safe compat > interfaces") > > v4.9.215: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > 31ea70e0308b ("posix-timers: Move the do_schedule_next_timer > declaration") > 96fe3b072f13 ("posix-timers: Rename do_schedule_next_timer") > 98f76206b335 ("compat: Cleanup in_compat_syscall() callers") > d5b7ffbfbdac ("time: introduce {get,put}_itimerspec64") > ea2ce8f3514e ("time: Fix get_timespec64() for y2038 safe compat > interfaces") > f59dd9c886ac ("time: add get_timespec64 and put_timespec64") > > v4.4.215: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > 2bf8c4762659 ("net/xfrm_user: use in_compat_syscall to deny compat > syscalls") > 31ea70e0308b ("posix-timers: Move the do_schedule_next_timer > declaration") > 4f01ed221e2e ("drivers/firmware/efi/efivars.c: use in_compat_syscall() to > check for compat callers") > 96fe3b072f13 ("posix-timers: Rename do_schedule_next_timer") > 98f76206b335 ("compat: Cleanup in_compat_syscall() callers") > bc2c53e5f1a2 ("time: add missing implementation for > timespec64_add_safe()") > d5b7ffbfbdac ("time: introduce {get,put}_itimerspec64") > ea2ce8f3514e ("time: Fix get_timespec64() for y2038 safe compat > interfaces") > f59dd9c886ac ("time: add get_timespec64 and put_timespec64") > > > NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream. > > How should we proceed with this patch? I believe I can try to backport this patch for the failed-to-apply branches. I will do the same for "[tip: efi/urgent] efi: Fix a race and a buffer overflow while reading efivars via sysfs" (from the same patchset) which may fail to be applied too. Best regards, Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | The Core Kernel | Senior Software Engineer > > -- > Thanks > Sasha
![]() |