Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/15] 6.1.48-rc1 review

[Naresh Kamboju]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:35:46PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > + linux-nfs and more
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 19:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.48 release.
> > > There are 15 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 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:14:28 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >
> > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.48-rc1.gz
> > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Following test regression found on stable-rc 6.1.
> > Rpi4 is using NFS mount rootfs and running LTP syscalls testing.
> > chown02 tests creating testfile2 on NFS mounted and validating
> > the functionality and found that it was a failure.
> >
> > This is already been reported by others on lore and fix patch merged
> > into stable-rc linux-6.4.y [1] and [2].
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Odd, it's not a regression in this -rc cycle, so it was missed in the
> previous ones somehow?
>
> > Test log:
> > --------
> > chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile1, 0, 0) passed
> > chown02.c:46: TPASS: chown(testfile2, 0, 0) passed
> > chown02.c:58: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700, expected 0102700
> >
> > fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(3, 0, 0) passed
> > fchown02.c:57: TPASS: fchown(4, 0, 0) passed
> > fchown02.c:67: TFAIL: testfile2: wrong mode permissions 0100700,
> > expected 0102700
> >
> >
> > ## Build
> > * kernel: 6.1.48-rc1
> > * git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
> > * git branch: linux-6.1.y
> > * git commit: c079d0dd788ad4fe887ee6349fe89d23d72f7696
> > * git describe: v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> > * test details:
> > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.1.y/build/v6.1.47-16-gc079d0dd788a
> >
> > ## Test Regressions (compared to v6.1.46)
> > * bcm2711-rpi-4-b, ltp-syscalls
> >   - chown02
> >   - fchown02
> >
> > * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-64k_page_size, ltp-syscalls
> >   - chown02
> >   - fchown02
> >
> > * bcm2711-rpi-4-b-clang, ltp-syscalls
> >   - chown02
> >   - fchown02
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Do we need the following patch into stable-rc linux-6.1.y ?
> >
> > I see from mailing thread discussion, says that
> >
> > the above commit is backported to LTS kernels -- 5.10.y,5.15.y and 6.1.y.
>
> What "above commit"?

Sorry, s/above/below/
I copied that from another email thread as it is.

>
> And what commit should be backported?


  nfsd: use vfs setgid helper
    commit 2d8ae8c417db284f598dffb178cc01e7db0f1821 upstream.

Please refer this link,
 - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230502-agenda-regeln-04d2573bd0fd@brauner/


>
> confused,
>
> greg k-h