Hi Greg, Sasha, A number of commits were identified[1] by syzbot as non-backported fixes for the fuzzer-detected findings in various Linux LTS trees. [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream/backports Please consider backporting the following commits to LTS v6.1: 9a8ec9e8ebb5a7c0cfbce2d6b4a6b67b2b78e8f3 "Bluetooth: SCO: Fix possible circular locking dependency on sco_connect_cfm" (fixes 9a8ec9e) 3dcaa192ac2159193bc6ab57bc5369dcb84edd8e "Bluetooth: SCO: fix sco_conn related locking and validity issues" 3f5424790d4377839093b68c12b130077a4e4510 "ext4: fix inode tree inconsistency caused by ENOMEM" 7b0151caf73a656b75b550e361648430233455a0 "KVM: x86: Remove WARN sanity check on hypervisor timer vs. UNINITIALIZED vCPU" c2efd13a2ed4f29bf9ef14ac2fbb7474084655f8 "udf: Limit file size to 4TB" 4b827b3f305d1fcf837265f1e12acc22ee84327c "xfs: remove WARN when dquot cache insertion fails" These were verified to apply cleanly on top of v6.1.107 and to build/boot. The following commits to LTS v5.15: 8216776ccff6fcd40e3fdaa109aa4150ebe760b3 "ext4: reject casefold inode flag without casefold feature" c2efd13a2ed4f29bf9ef14ac2fbb7474084655f8 "udf: Limit file size to 4TB" These were verified to apply cleanly on top of v5.15.165 and to build/boot. The following commits to LTS v5.10: 04e568a3b31cfbd545c04c8bfc35c20e5ccfce0f "ext4: handle redirtying in ext4_bio_write_page()" 2a1fc7dc36260fbe74b6ca29dc6d9088194a2115 "KVM: x86: Suppress MMIO that is triggered during task switch emulation" 2454ad83b90afbc6ed2c22ec1310b624c40bf0d3 "fs: Restrict lock_two_nondirectories() to non-directory inodes" (fixes 2454ad) 33ab231f83cc12d0157711bbf84e180c3be7d7bc "fs: don't assume arguments are non-NULL" These were verified to apply cleanly on top of v5.10.224 and to build/boot. There are also a lot of syzbot-detected fix commits that did not apply cleanly, but the conflicts seem to be quite straightforward to resolve manually. Could you please share what the current process is with respect to such fix patches? For example, are you sending emails asking developers to adjust the non-applied patch (if they want), or is it the other way around -- you expect the authors to be proactive and send the adjusted patch versions themselves? Some sample commits, which failed to apply to v6.1.107: ff91059932401894e6c86341915615c5eb0eca48 "bpf, sockmap: Prevent lock inversion deadlock in map delete elem" f8f210dc84709804c9f952297f2bfafa6ea6b4bd "btrfs: calculate the right space for delayed refs when updating global reserve" -- Aleksandr
