Re: [PATCH 4.14 000/246] 4.14.60-stable review

[Guenter Roeck]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 09:41:35PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 12:09:46PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 11:25:17AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 08:43:25AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:48:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.60 release.
> > > > > There are 246 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 Aug  3 16:49:18 UTC 2018.
> > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Build results:
> > > > 	total: 148 pass: 148 fail: 0
> > > > Qemu test results:
> > > > 	total: 198 pass: 198 fail: 0
> > > > 
> > > > Details are available at http://kerneltests.org/builders/.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I spoke too early. parisc images crash after adding some configuration
> > > options. I don't see the crash with v4.14.59. I'll send another update
> > > later after figuring out what is going on.
> > > 
> > 
> > The patch causing the problem is commit 27608f359da88eaf ("fasync: Fix deadlock
> > between task-context and interrupt-context kill_fasync()"), see bisect log
> > below.
> > 
> > Kernel log message is as follows.
> > 
> > PDC_CHASSIS: Fault (1), CHASSIS  0
> > Backtrace:
> >  [<10267738>] dput.part.5+0x1dc/0x1f0
> >  [<1026776c>] dput+0x20/0x30
> >  [<1024f79c>] __fput+0x14c/0x230
> >  [<1024f8e4>] ____fput+0x18/0x28
> >  [<1019abe0>] task_work_run+0xa4/0xd8
> >  [<1016d044>] do_notify_resume+0x7c/0x84
> >  [<1015c258>] syscall_do_signal+0x50/0x9c
> > 
> > The problem only affects v4.14.60-rc1; all other stable releases and release
> > candidates are fine.
> 
> That is really odd as that commit is also in the 4.17 and 4.9 -rc
> releases.
> 
> I'll go drop it from all queues just to be safe, odds are something in
> that backport isn't correct.
> 

... or the context is somehow different. But I agree, it is odd that
I didn't see the problem in 4.9/4.17.

I restarted the boot tests; I'll let you know after they are complete.
Build tests will run again tonight.

Guenter