On 07/04/23 13:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 11:56:11AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 04.07.23 10:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:13:03PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote: > > >> On 04/07/23 1:54 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> While running LTP hugetlb testing on x86 the following kernel BUG noticed > > >>>>> on running stable-rc 6.3.12-rc1. > > >> > > >> Have you looked at Patch 9 of this series: > > >> > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/2023070416-wow-phrasing-b92c@gregkh/T/#m12068530e846ac8b9668bd83941d82ec3f22ac15 > > >> > > >> Looks very much related, it also has a note on Backporting. > > >> As I think it could be related, I am sharing this.(But haven't tested > > >> anything) > > > > > > Yes, that's the offending patch. I should have read over the full > > > changelogs before doing bisection, but bisection/test proved that this > > > was not correct for 6.3.y at this point in time. > > > > FWIW, I'm preparing a few small tweaks for > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst (to be submitted after the > > merge window). I among others consider adding something like this that > > might help avoiding this situation: > > > > ``` > > To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the > > following format: > > > > .. code-block:: none > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # after 4 weeks in mainline > > > > For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, > > just add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point > > out known problems: > > > > .. code-block:: none > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # see patch description, needs > > adjustments for 6.3 and earlier > > > > ``` > > > > Greg, if this is stupid or in case you want it to say something else, > > just say so. > > That looks great, hopefully people notice this. We still have a huge > number of people refusing to even put cc: stable in a patch, let alone > these extra hints :) We were trying to follow "Option 2" of the stable rules with this patch. Because of the issue with 6.3.y, cc: stable was intentionally left off the upstream patch. And, after the patch was in Linus's tree a 6.3.y specific version was sent: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230629211817.194786-1-sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx/ To complicate matters, a bug was found and fixed in the upstream patch during this process. Apologies if things were not done correctly. -- Mike Kravetz
