Hello! On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 12:37, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:24 AM Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > Would the stable maintainers please consider backporting the following > > commit to the 6.1? We are trying to build gki_defconfig (plus a few > > Does android's gki_defconfig fail to boot on the `android14-6.1` > branch of https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common? > > (i.e. downstream branch from linux stable's linux-6.1.y)? > > We just ran CI successfully on that branch 10 hours ago. > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/continuous-integration2/actions/runs/5042504560/jobs/9045030265 > > Do you have more information on the observed boot failure? (panic splat?) Apologies if it sounded like we were trying to boot an Android kernel. Let me clarify: We're booting v6.1.29 from linux-stable/linux-6.1.y. This is what we get under Qemu-arm64 for v6.1.29 with Clang 16: -----8<----- Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 Internal error: BRK handler: 00000000f2000001 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.1.29 #1 Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : pskb_expand_head+0x448/0x480 lr : pskb_expand_head+0x13c/0x480 sp : ffff80000802b850 x29: ffff80000802b860 x28: 00000000000002c0 x27: 0000000000000ec0 x26: ffff0000c02c8ec0 x25: ffff0000c02c8000 x24: 00000000000128c0 x23: ffff0000c030e800 x22: ffff0000c030e800 x21: 0000000000000240 x20: 0000000000000000 x19: ffff0000c085e900 x18: ffff800008021068 x17: 00000000ad6b63b6 x16: 00000000ad6b63b6 x15: 0001001c00070038 x14: 0000000c00020008 x13: 00882cc00000ffff x12: 0000000000000000 x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000 x9 : 0000000000000001 x8 : ffff0000c030eac0 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000000 x5 : ffff0000c030eaf0 x4 : ffff0000ff7abd10 x3 : 0000000000001740 x2 : ffff0000c02c8000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 Call trace: pskb_expand_head+0x448/0x480 netlink_trim+0xa0/0xc8 netlink_broadcast+0x54/0x764 genl_ctrl_event+0x21c/0x37c genl_register_family+0x628/0x708 thermal_netlink_init+0x28/0x3c thermal_init+0x28/0xec do_one_initcall+0xfc/0x358 do_initcall_level+0xd8/0x1b4 do_initcalls+0x64/0xa8 do_basic_setup+0x2c/0x3c kernel_init_freeable+0x118/0x198 kernel_init+0x30/0x1c0 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: f9406679 38776b28 3707eba8 17ffff67 (d4200020) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: BRK handler: Fatal exception SMP: stopping secondary CPUs ----->8----- Here's a link to that test, with all artifacts: https://tuxapi.tuxsuite.com/v1/groups/linaro/projects/daniel/tests/2QA2CVTTvG6KZETMUyZCNgS8koR This can be reproduced locally via Tuxrun: -----8<----- #pip3 install -U tuxrun tuxrun --runtime podman \ --device qemu-arm64 \ --image docker.io/lavasoftware/lava-dispatcher:2023.01.0020.gc1598238f \ --boot-args rw \ --kernel https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/daniel/builds/2QA2CHQUpqKe27FyMZrBNILVwXi/Image.gz \ --modules https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/daniel/builds/2QA2CHQUpqKe27FyMZrBNILVwXi/modules.tar.xz \ --rootfs https://storage.tuxboot.com/debian/bookworm/arm64/rootfs.ext4.xz ----->8----- This is vanilla v6.1.29 with no extra patches, just this kernel configuration: https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/daniel/builds/2QA2CHQUpqKe27FyMZrBNILVwXi/config Greetings! Daniel Díaz daniel.diaz@xxxxxxxxxx > > extras) on Arm64 and test it under Qemu-arm64, but it fails to boot. > > Bisection has pointed here. > > > > We have verified that cherry-picking this patch on top of v6.1.29 > > applies cleanly and allows the kernel to boot. > > > > commit 12d6c1d3a2ad0c199ec57c201cdc71e8e157a232 > > Author: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue Oct 25 15:39:35 2022 -0700 > > > > skbuff: Proactively round up to kmalloc bucket size > > > > Instead of discovering the kmalloc bucket size _after_ allocation, round > > up proactively so the allocation is explicitly made for the full size, > > allowing the compiler to correctly reason about the resulting size of > > the buffer through the existing __alloc_size() hint. > > > > This will allow for kernels built with CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS or the > > coming dynamic bounds checking under CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE to gain > > back the __alloc_size() hints that were temporarily reverted in commit > > 93dd04ab0b2b ("slab: remove __alloc_size attribute from > > __kmalloc_track_caller") > > > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > > Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20221021234713.you.031-kees@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221025223811.up.360-kees@xxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks and greetings! > > > > Daniel Díaz > > daniel.diaz@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > -- > Thanks, > ~Nick Desaulniers
