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

[Salvatore Bonaccorso]

Hi
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 10:26:59AM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee (Codethink) wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 04:14:56PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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.
> 
> Build test (gcc version 12.3.1 20230625):
> mips: 52 configs -> no failure
> arm: 100 configs -> no failure
> arm64: 3 configs -> no failure
> x86_64: 4 configs -> no failure
> alpha allmodconfig -> no failure
> csky allmodconfig -> no failure
> powerpc allmodconfig -> no failure
> riscv allmodconfig -> no failure
> s390 allmodconfig -> no failure
> xtensa allmodconfig -> no failure
> 
> Boot test:
> x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. Warning on boot.
> x86_64: Booted on qemu. Warning on boot. [1]
> arm64: Booted on rpi4b (4GB model). No regression. [2]
> mips: Booted on ci20 board. No regression. [3]
> 
> [1]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/4787
> [2]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/4796
> [3]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/4795
> 
> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> [    0.154501] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [    0.154505] missing return thunk: __alt_instructions_end+0x21b2/0x21d0-srso_untrain_ret+0x0/0x2: e9 17 81 f8 fe
> [    0.154517] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:572 apply_returns+0x1cb/0x200
> [    0.154524] Modules linked in:
> [    0.154526] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.1.48-rc1-c079d0dd788a+ #1
> [    0.154529] Hardware name: LENOVO 4287CTO/4287CTO, BIOS 8DET68WW (1.38 ) 04/11/2013
> [    0.154531] RIP: 0010:apply_returns+0x1cb/0x200
> [    0.154534] Code: 5b 01 00 0f 85 0b ff ff ff 49 89 e8 b9 05 00 00 00 4c 89 f2 48 89 ee 48 c7 c7 38 16 4f b8 c6 05 f5 d1 5b 01 01 e8 85 8e 05 00 <0f> 0b e9 e3 fe ff ff c7 84 24 81 00 00 00 cc cc cc cc 42 c7 44 38
> [    0.154536] RSP: 0000:ffffffffb8803e30 EFLAGS: 00010282
> [    0.154539] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffffffb906d7b4 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [    0.154541] RDX: 0000000000000003 RSI: 0000000000004ffb RDI: 00000000ffffffff
> [    0.154542] RBP: ffffffffb9079962 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00000000ffffefff
> [    0.154544] R10: ffffffffb8803cc0 R11: ffffffffb88cc1e8 R12: ffffffffb906d7d4
> [    0.154545] R13: cccccccccccccccc R14: ffffffffb8001a7e R15: 0000000000000004
> [    0.154547] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff936dd6200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [    0.154549] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [    0.154551] CR2: ffff936dde5ff000 CR3: 000000013b40a001 CR4: 00000000000606f0
> [    0.154553] Call Trace:
> [    0.154556]  <TASK>
> [    0.154559]  ? __warn+0x79/0xc0
> [    0.154565]  ? apply_returns+0x1cb/0x200
> [    0.154567]  ? report_bug+0xee/0x170
> [    0.154572]  ? prb_read_valid+0x17/0x20
> [    0.154578]  ? handle_bug+0x42/0x70
> [    0.154581]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x70
> [    0.154583]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
> [    0.154586]  ? retbleed_return_thunk+0x7e/0x7e
> [    0.154591]  ? apply_returns+0x1cb/0x200
> [    0.154594]  ? apply_retpolines+0x1f5/0x2c0
> [    0.154598]  alternative_instructions+0x4d/0xfc
> [    0.154604]  arch_cpu_finalize_init+0x28/0x47
> [    0.154607]  start_kernel+0x66c/0x70e
> [    0.154612]  secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xce/0xdb
> [    0.154618]  </TASK>
> [    0.154619] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

Seeing this as well, but see some context in the thread in the
previous cycle (where then those patches were not included);

https://lore.kernel.org/stable/2023082212-pregnant-lizard-80e0@gregkh/

Apart for the above regression, no other regressions spotted. 

Tested-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@xxxxxxxxxx> 

Regards,
Salvatore