on 2023/04/21 16:04, Petr Vorel wrote: >> Hi! >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.241 release. >>>> There are 92 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 Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:02:44 +0000. >>>> 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-5.4.241-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 > > >>> Recently we have upgraded the LTP test suite version and started noticing >>> these test failures on 5.4. >>> Test getting skipped on 4.19 and 4.14 as not supported features. > >>> Need to investigate test case issues or kernel issues. > >>> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> NOTE: > >>> --- >>> creat09.c:73: TINFO: User nobody: uid = 65534, gid = 65534 >>> creat09.c:75: TINFO: Found unused GID 11: SUCCESS (0) >>> creat09.c:120: TINFO: File created with umask(0) >>> creat09.c:106: TPASS: mntpoint/testdir/creat.tmp: Owned by correct group >>> creat09.c:112: TPASS: mntpoint/testdir/creat.tmp: Setgid bit not set >>> creat09.c:106: TPASS: mntpoint/testdir/open.tmp: Owned by correct group >>> creat09.c:112: TPASS: mntpoint/testdir/open.tmp: Setgid bit not set >>> creat09.c:120: TINFO: File created with umask(S_IXGRP) >>> creat09.c:106: TPASS: mntpoint/testdir/creat.tmp: Owned by correct group >>> creat09.c:110: TFAIL: mntpoint/testdir/creat.tmp: Setgid bit is set >>> creat09.c:106: TPASS: mntpoint/testdir/open.tmp: Owned by correct group >>> creat09.c:110: TFAIL: mntpoint/testdir/open.tmp: Setgid bit is set > >>> Test history links, >>> - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.238-199-g230f1bde44b6/testrun/16338751/suite/ltp-syscalls/test/creat09/history/ >>> - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.238-199-g230f1bde44b6/testrun/16337895/suite/ltp-cve/test/cve-2018-13405/history/ >>> - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.238-199-g230f1bde44b6/testrun/16338751/suite/ltp-syscalls/test/creat09/log > >> That's likely a missing kernel patch, as this is a regression test there >> should have been links to the patches and CVE referencies in the test >> output as the test is tagged with kernel commits and CVE numbers: > >> .tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) { >> {"linux-git", "0fa3ecd87848"}, >> {"CVE", "2018-13405"}, >> {"CVE", "2021-4037"}, >> {"linux-git", "01ea173e103e"}, > Only this one has been backported (as > e76bd6da51235ce86f5a8017dd6c056c76da64f9), the other two are missing. >> {"linux-git", "1639a49ccdce"}, >> {"linux-git", "426b4ca2d6a5"}, > The last one is merge tag, I wonder if it's correct: > 426b4ca2d6a5 ("Merge tag 'fs.setgid.v6.0' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux") > Maybe just 1639a49ccdce would be ok. > > @Yang Xu > 1) why 1639a49ccdce has not been merged to stable tree? It does not apply now, > was that the only reason? Or is it not applicable? In fact, I don't know the stable kernel tree details. > > @Yang Xu is really 426b4ca2d6a5 needed? Was it easier to list merge commit than > particular fixes? Merge commit contains: > > 5fadbd992996 ("ceph: rely on vfs for setgid stripping") > 1639a49ccdce ("fs: move S_ISGID stripping into the vfs_*() helpers") > ac6800e279a2 ("fs: Add missing umask strip in vfs_tmpfile") > 2b3416ceff5e ("fs: add mode_strip_sgid() helper") We just need 1639a49ccdce commit is ok and this commit will depend on 2b3416ceff5e because the previous commit needs to use mode_strip_sgid api. For the merged commit, we have a disscussion for 5.19 or 6.0 with cyril on last year see url https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/1663143142-2283-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > > They have not been backported to 5.4 stable, nor to the older releases. > Again, they don't apply. > I don't have attention to stable kernel tree, maybe we can ask 5.14 stable maintainer? Best Regards Yang Xu > >> {} >> }, > >>> --- > >>> fanotify14.c:161: TCONF: FAN_REPORT_TARGET_FID not supported in kernel? >>> fanotify14.c:157: TINFO: Test case 7: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | >>> FAN_REPORT_TARGET_FID | FAN_REPORT_DFID_FID, O_RDONLY) >>> fanotify14.c:161: TCONF: FAN_REPORT_TARGET_FID not supported in kernel? >>> [ 377.081993] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounting ext3 file system using the >>> ext4 subsystem >>> fanotify14.c:157: TINFO: Test case 8: fanotify_init(FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | >>> FAN_REPORT_DFID_FID, O_RDONLY) >>> [ 377.099137] EXT4-fs (loop0): mounted filesystem with ordered data >>> mode. Opts: (null) >>> fanotify14.c:175: TFAIL: fanotify_init(tc->init.flags, O_RDONLY) >>> failed: EINVAL (22) > >> Possibly like the test may be missing check for a FAN_REPORT_DFID_FID >> support. > > @Amir could you please look at this fanotify14.c failure on 5.4.241-rc1? > > Kind regards, > Petr
