Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/74] 4.14.10-stable review

From: Milosz Wasilewski
Date: Sat Dec 30 2017 - 11:53:45 EST

On 29 December 2017 at 10:35, Milosz Wasilewski
<milosz.wasilewski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 29 December 2017 at 09:18, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:29:04AM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>> On 27 December 2017 at 22:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.10 release.
>>> > There are 74 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>> > let me know.
>>> >
>>> > Responses should be made by Fri Dec 29 16:45:52 UTC 2017.
>>> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>> >
>>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>>> >
>>> > or in the git tree and branch at:
>>> > git:// linux-4.14.y
>>> > and the diffstat can be found below.
>>> >
>>> > thanks,
>>> >
>>> > greg k-h
>>> Results from Linaroâs test farm.
>>> No regressions on arm64 and arm.
>>> x86_64 build results will be shared soon in this email thread.
>> I'm guessing x86 is busted for you? Is that a stable patch issue, or an
>> infrastructure issue?
> It was just a timing issue. Builders were busy so the x86 build got
> delayed. The test results are available now. There is one failed
> kselftest (ldt_gdt_64) that didn't fail before but needs to be
> re-tested to confirm that this isn't an intermittent problem.

I re-tested ldt_gdt_64 again locally and in testing LAB. The test
failed again so I think this is a regression. I did the bisection
which resulted in

2c8e9099aecec2baaac8d34c7b823493f2d0eeed is the first bad commit
commit 2c8e9099aecec2baaac8d34c7b823493f2d0eeed
Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Dec 14 12:27:31 2017 +0100

x86/ldt: Prevent LDT inheritance on exec

commit a4828f81037f491b2cc986595e3a969a6eeb2fb5 upstream.

Reverting this commit makes he ldt_gdt_64 pass again. However it's
worth to mention that the test uses a pre-build version of kselftest
from 4.14 (sources here: The
offending commit also changed tools/testing/selftests/x86/ldt_gdt.c. I
re-tested original build using this version of kselftests and the
ldt_gdt_64 passes (as expected). This makes me thinking whether using
the 'old' version of kselftests is a good idea.

To conclude, nothing to be done to 4.14.10. All tests passed on x86