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
