On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:50:26AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 10:44, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/30/24 17:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:00:36AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > >> On 29. 01. 24, 18:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>> 6.7-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > >>> > > >>> ------------------ > > >>> > > >>> From: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> > > >>> commit 5ec8e8ea8b7783fab150cf86404fc38cb4db8800 upstream. > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> our machinery (git-fixes) says, this is needed as a fix: > > >> commit f6564fce256a3944aa1bc76cb3c40e792d97c1eb > > >> Author: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> Date: Thu Jan 18 11:59:14 2024 +0100 > > >> > > >> mm, kmsan: fix infinite recursion due to RCU critical section > > >> > > >> > > >> Leaving up to the recipients to decide, as I have no idea… > > > > Let's Cc the people involved in f6564fce256a394 > > > > > That commit just got merged into Linus's tree, AND it is not marked for > > > stable, which is worrying as I have to get the developers's approval to > > > add any non-cc-stable mm patch to the tree because they said they would > > > always mark them properly :) > > > > > > So I can't take it just yet... > > So 5ec8e8ea8b7783fab150cf86404fc38cb4db8800 is being backported to > stable, which means that the issue that f6564fce256a394 fixed will be > present in stable. I didn't mark f6564fce256a394 as stable as the > problem doesn't exist in stable (yet), but if the problem-introducing > commit is being backported, then yes, please also backport > f6564fce256a394 to stable. Thanks, now queued up. greg k-h
