On Mon, 2024-06-24 at 13:14 +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> (+Jeff & linux-nfs in Ccs)
>
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:40:15PM +0200:
> > [ Upstream commit 9f28a971ee9fdf1bf8ce8c88b103f483be610277 ]
>
> Playing with dyad in the 'vulns' repo, I noticed this commit got
> reverted in the 6.1 tree by pure chance as I just happened to test it
> on
> a related commit and wondered why the 6.1 kernel was listed twice:
> b2c545c39877 ("Revert "nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from
> nfsd_put()"")
> db5f2f4db8b7 ("Revert "nfsd: call nfsd_last_thread() before final
> nfsd_put()"")
>
> See this thread for the discussion that caused that revert:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/e341cb408b5663d8c91b8fa57b41bb984be43448.camel@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
>
> What made me look is that they got in 5.10/15 (without revert):
>
> 5.10 tree (since v5.10.220)
> 838a602db75d ("nfsd: call nfsd_last_thread() before final
> nfsd_put()")
> d31cd25f5501 ("nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from nfsd_put()")
>
> 5.15 tree (since v5.15.154)
> c52fee7a1f98 ("nfsd: call nfsd_last_thread() before final
> nfsd_put()")
> 56e5eeff6cfa ("nfsd: separate nfsd_last_thread() from nfsd_put()")
>
>
> I considered trying to revert them as well, but it looks like they've
> been fixed by this commit (upstream id):
> 64e6304169f1 ("nfsd: drop the nfsd_put helper")
> which wasn't in 6.1, so perhaps that's all there is to it and I'm
> worried too much?
>
> Jeff, you're the one who suggested reverting the two back then, sorry
> to
> dump it on you but do you remember the kind of problems you ran into?
> Is there any chance it would have gone unoticed in the 5.15 tree for
> 2.5 months? (5.15.154 was April 2024)
>
Sorry, I don't think I kept a record of that panic that I hit at the
time. I do think that I looked at the original bug report and it looked
like it was probably the same problem, but I don't remember the
details.
I think I just mentioned reverting them because I didn't see the
benefit in taking those into an old kernel. These are privileged
anyway, so even if they are bugs I don't seem them as particularly
critical.
> (Bonus question: if that is really all there is, would that make
> sense
> / should we take the commits back in 6.1 with that extra fix?)
>
>
>
Maybe? The problem is that someone has to do the testing for this.
These interfaces aren't currently part of any testsuite, so a lot of
that tends to be a manual effort.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
