On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:43:46AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:21 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Justin Forbes <jforbes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:01:07AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >> 6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >>
> > >> ------------------
> > >>
> > >> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> [ Upstream commit c48a7c44a1d02516309015b6134c9bb982e17008 ]
> > >>
> > >> The kernel-feat directive passes its argument straight to the shell.
> > >> This is unfortunate and unnecessary.
> > >>
> > >> Let's always use paths relative to $srctree/Documentation/ and use
> > >> subprocess.check_call() instead of subprocess.Popen(shell=True).
> > >>
> > >> This also makes the code shorter.
> > >>
> > >> This is analogous to commit 3231dd586277 ("docs: kernel_abi.py: fix
> > >> command injection") where we did exactly the same thing for
> > >> kernel_abi.py, somehow I completely missed this one.
> > >>
> > >> Link: https://fosstodon.org/@jani/111676532203641247
> > >> Reported-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> > >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240110174758.3680506-1-vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch seems to be missing something. In 6.6.15-rc1 I get a doc
> > > build failure with:
> > >
> > > /builddir/build/BUILD/kernel-6.6.14-332-g1ff49073b88b/linux-6.6.15-0.rc1.1ff49073b88b.200.fc39.noarch/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py:133: SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence '\.'
> > > line_regex = re.compile("^\.\. LINENO ([0-9]+)$")
> >
> > Ah ... you're missing 86a0adc029d3 (Documentation/sphinx: fix Python
> > string escapes). That is not a problem with this patch, though; I would
> > expect you to get the same error (with Python 3.12) without.
>
> Well, it appears that 6.6.15 shipped anyway, with this patch included,
> but not with 86a0adc029d3. If anyone else builds docs, this thread
> should at least show them the fix. Perhaps we can get the missing
> patch into 6.6.16?
Sure, but again, that should be independent of this change, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
>
> Jusitn
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > jon
> >
>
