Re: [PATCH 5.4 000/191] 5.4.8-stable review

[Mike Kravetz]

On 1/3/20 7:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:29:56PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:25 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:03 PM Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 03:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>>>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -ENOENT is what you get when hugetlbfs is not mounted, so this hints to
>>>>
>>>> 8fc312b32b2  mm/hugetlbfs: fix error handling when setting up mounts
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/commit/?h=linux-5.4.y&id=3f549fb42a39bea3b29c0fc12afee53c4a01bec9
>>>
>>> I see that Mike Kravetz suggested not putting this patch into stable in
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/befca227-cb8a-8f47-617d-e3bf9972bfec@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> but it was picked through the autosel mechanism later.
>>
>> So does that mean that Linus's tree shows this LTP failure as well?
> 
> Yes, according to
> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/tests/ltp-syscalls-tests/memfd_create04
> mainline has the same testcase failure, it started happening between
> v5.4-10135-gc3bfc5dd73c6 and v5.4-10271-g596cf45cbf6e, when the patch
> was originally merged into 5.5-rc1.
> 
>> This does seem to fix a real issue, as shown by the LTP test noticing
>> it, so should the error code value be fixed in Linus's tree?
> 
> No idea what to conclude from the testcase failure, let's see if Mike has
> any suggestions.
> 

Thanks for isolating to this patch!

There are dependencies between arch specific code and arch independent code
during the setup of hugetlb sizes/mounts.  Let me take a closer look at the
arm64 code and get access to a system for debug.

-- 
Mike Kravetz