On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:53:39PM +0000, Milosz Wasilewski wrote: > On 29 December 2017 at 10:35, Milosz Wasilewski > <milosz.wasilewski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 29 December 2017 at 09:18, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:29:04AM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > >>> On 27 December 2017 at 22:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.10 release. > >>> > There are 74 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 Dec 29 16:45:52 UTC 2017. > >>> > Anything received after that time might be too late. > >>> > > >>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > >>> > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.10-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-4.14.y > >>> > and the diffstat can be found below. > >>> > > >>> > thanks, > >>> > > >>> > greg k-h > >>> > >>> Results from Linaro’s test farm. > >>> No regressions on arm64 and arm. > >>> x86_64 build results will be shared soon in this email thread. > >> > >> I'm guessing x86 is busted for you? Is that a stable patch issue, or an > >> infrastructure issue? > >> > > > > It was just a timing issue. Builders were busy so the x86 build got > > delayed. The test results are available now. There is one failed > > kselftest (ldt_gdt_64) that didn't fail before but needs to be > > re-tested to confirm that this isn't an intermittent problem. > > > > I re-tested ldt_gdt_64 again locally and in testing LAB. The test > failed again so I think this is a regression. I did the bisection > which resulted in > > 2c8e9099aecec2baaac8d34c7b823493f2d0eeed is the first bad commit > commit 2c8e9099aecec2baaac8d34c7b823493f2d0eeed > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Dec 14 12:27:31 2017 +0100 > > x86/ldt: Prevent LDT inheritance on exec > > commit a4828f81037f491b2cc986595e3a969a6eeb2fb5 upstream. > > Reverting this commit makes he ldt_gdt_64 pass again. However it's > worth to mention that the test uses a pre-build version of kselftest > from 4.14 (sources here: > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.14.tar.xz). The > offending commit also changed tools/testing/selftests/x86/ldt_gdt.c. I > re-tested original build using this version of kselftests and the > ldt_gdt_64 passes (as expected). This makes me thinking whether using > the 'old' version of kselftests is a good idea. You should use the version with the fix, for the obvious reason as documented in the selftest change :) thanks, greg k-h