2021-07-05 11:02:30

by Sasha Levin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 0/6] 5.4.130-rc1 review


This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.130 release.
There are 6 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 Wed 07 Jul 2021 11:00:14 AM UTC.
Anything received after that time might be too late.

The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/patch/?id=linux-5.4.y&id2=v5.4.129
or in the git tree and branch at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
and the diffstat can be found below.

Thanks,
Sasha

-------------
Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:

Christian König (1):
drm/nouveau: fix dma_address check for CPU/GPU sync

Johannes Berg (1):
gpio: AMD8111 and TQMX86 require HAS_IOPORT_MAP

ManYi Li (1):
scsi: sr: Return appropriate error code when disk is ejected

Mark Bloch (1):
RDMA/mlx5: Block FDB rules when not in switchdev mode

Sasha Levin (1):
Linux 5.4.130-rc1

YueHaibing (1):
x86/efi: remove unused variables

Makefile | 4 ++--
drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c | 4 ++--
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/flow.c | 8 ++++++++
drivers/scsi/sr.c | 2 ++
security/integrity/platform_certs/load_uefi.c | 5 -----
6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--
2.30.2


2021-07-05 11:02:37

by Sasha Levin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 1/6] x86/efi: remove unused variables

From: YueHaibing <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 6f090192f8225f52ba95d08785989688cb768cca ]

commit ad723674d675 ("x86/efi: move common keyring handler functions
to new file") leave this unused.

Fixes: ad723674d675 ("x86/efi: move common keyring handler functions to new file")
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
---
security/integrity/platform_certs/load_uefi.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_uefi.c b/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_uefi.c
index aa874d84e413..f0c908241966 100644
--- a/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_uefi.c
+++ b/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_uefi.c
@@ -11,11 +11,6 @@
#include "../integrity.h"
#include "keyring_handler.h"

-static efi_guid_t efi_cert_x509_guid __initdata = EFI_CERT_X509_GUID;
-static efi_guid_t efi_cert_x509_sha256_guid __initdata =
- EFI_CERT_X509_SHA256_GUID;
-static efi_guid_t efi_cert_sha256_guid __initdata = EFI_CERT_SHA256_GUID;
-
/*
* Look to see if a UEFI variable called MokIgnoreDB exists and return true if
* it does.
--
2.30.2

2021-07-05 11:03:37

by Sasha Levin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 3/6] drm/nouveau: fix dma_address check for CPU/GPU sync

From: Christian König <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit d330099115597bbc238d6758a4930e72b49ea9ba ]

AGP for example doesn't have a dma_address array.

Signed-off-by: Christian König <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Alex Deucher <[email protected]>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
index f8015e0318d7..f7603be569fc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ nouveau_bo_sync_for_device(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo)
struct ttm_dma_tt *ttm_dma = (struct ttm_dma_tt *)nvbo->bo.ttm;
int i;

- if (!ttm_dma)
+ if (!ttm_dma || !ttm_dma->dma_address)
return;

/* Don't waste time looping if the object is coherent */
@@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ nouveau_bo_sync_for_cpu(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo)
struct ttm_dma_tt *ttm_dma = (struct ttm_dma_tt *)nvbo->bo.ttm;
int i;

- if (!ttm_dma)
+ if (!ttm_dma || !ttm_dma->dma_address)
return;

/* Don't waste time looping if the object is coherent */
--
2.30.2

2021-07-05 20:39:37

by Guenter Roeck

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/6] 5.4.130-rc1 review

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 07:00:23AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.130 release.
> There are 6 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 Wed 07 Jul 2021 11:00:14 AM UTC.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>

Build results:
total: 157 pass: 157 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
total: 428 pass: 428 fail: 0

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>

Guenter

2021-07-06 05:08:58

by Naresh Kamboju

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/6] 5.4.130-rc1 review

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 16:30, Sasha Levin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.130 release.
> There are 6 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 Wed 07 Jul 2021 11:00:14 AM UTC.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/patch/?id=linux-5.4.y&id2=v5.4.129
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha

Results from Linaro’s test farm.
No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.

Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <[email protected]>

## Build
* kernel: 5.4.130-rc1
* git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
* git branch: linux-5.4.y
* git commit: 730ab99d05cb6e5857910adb0a22eba8d08ee621
* git describe: v5.4.129-6-g730ab99d05cb
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.4.y/build/v5.4.129-6-g730ab99d05cb

## No regressions (compared to v5.4.129)

## No fixes (compared to v5.4.129)

## Test result summary
total: 71569, pass: 58697, fail: 518, skip: 10733, xfail: 1621,

## Build Summary
* arc: 10 total, 10 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 192 total, 191 passed, 1 failed
* arm64: 26 total, 25 passed, 1 failed
* dragonboard-410c: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* hi6220-hikey: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* i386: 15 total, 14 passed, 1 failed
* juno-r2: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* mips: 45 total, 45 passed, 0 failed
* parisc: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed
* powerpc: 27 total, 27 passed, 0 failed
* riscv: 21 total, 21 passed, 0 failed
* s390: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed
* sh: 18 total, 18 passed, 0 failed
* sparc: 9 total, 9 passed, 0 failed
* x15: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* x86: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* x86_64: 26 total, 25 passed, 1 failed

## Test suites summary
* fwts
* install-android-platform-tools-r2600
* kselftest-android
* kselftest-bpf
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-efivarfs
* kselftest-filesystems
* kselftest-firmware
* kselftest-fpu
* kselftest-futex
* kselftest-gpio
* kselftest-intel_pstate
* kselftest-ipc
* kselftest-ir
* kselftest-kcmp
* kselftest-kexec
* kselftest-kvm
* kselftest-lib
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-lkdtm
* kselftest-membarrier
* kselftest-memfd
* kselftest-memory-hotplug
* kselftest-mincore
* kselftest-mount
* kselftest-mqueue
* kselftest-net
* kselftest-netfilter
* kselftest-nsfs
* kselftest-openat2
* kselftest-pid_namespace
* kselftest-pidfd
* kselftest-proc
* kselftest-pstore
* kselftest-ptrace
* kselftest-rseq
* kselftest-rtc
* kselftest-seccomp
* kselftest-sigaltstack
* kselftest-size
* kselftest-splice
* kselftest-static_keys
* kselftest-sync
* kselftest-sysctl
* kselftest-tc-testing
* kselftest-timens
* kselftest-timers
* kselftest-tmpfs
* kselftest-tpm2
* kselftest-user
* kselftest-vm
* kselftest-x86
* kselftest-zram
* kvm-unit-tests
* libgpiod
* libhugetlbfs
* linux-log-parser
* ltp-cap_bounds-tests
* ltp-commands-tests
* ltp-containers-tests
* ltp-controllers-tests
* ltp-cpuhotplug-tests
* ltp-crypto-tests
* ltp-cve-tests
* ltp-dio-tests
* ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests
* ltp-filecaps-tests
* ltp-fs-tests
* ltp-fs_bind-tests
* ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests
* ltp-fsx-tests
* ltp-hugetlb-tests
* ltp-io-tests
* ltp-ipc-tests
* ltp-math-tests
* ltp-mm-tests
* ltp-nptl-tests
* ltp-open-posix-tests
* ltp-pty-tests
* ltp-sched-tests
* ltp-securebits-tests
* ltp-syscalls-tests
* ltp-tracing-tests
* network-basic-tests
* packetdrill
* perf
* perf/Zstd-perf.data-compression
* rcutorture
* ssuite
* v4l2-compliance

--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org

2021-07-06 06:09:16

by Zou Wei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/6] 5.4.130-rc1 review



On 2021/7/5 19:00, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.130 release.
> There are 6 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 Wed 07 Jul 2021 11:00:14 AM UTC.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/patch/?id=linux-5.4.y&id2=v5.4.129
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
>

Tested on arm64 and x86 for 5.4.130-rc1,

Kernel repo:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Branch: linux-5.4.y
Version: 5.4.130-rc1
Commit: 730ab99d05cb6e5857910adb0a22eba8d08ee621
Compiler: gcc version 7.3.0 (GCC)

arm64:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testcase Result Summary:
total: 8905
passed: 8905
failed: 0
timeout: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

x86:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testcase Result Summary:
total: 8905
passed: 8905
failed: 0
timeout: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Tested-by: Hulk Robot <[email protected]>

2021-07-06 15:14:15

by Sudip Mukherjee

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/6] 5.4.130-rc1 review

Hi Sasha,

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 07:00:23AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.130 release.
> There are 6 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 Wed 07 Jul 2021 11:00:14 AM UTC.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.

Build test:
mips (gcc version 11.1.1 20210702): 65 configs -> no failure
arm (gcc version 11.1.1 20210702): 107 configs -> no new failure
arm64 (gcc version 11.1.1 20210702): 2 configs -> no failure
x86_64 (gcc version 10.2.1 20210110): 2 configs -> no failure

Boot test:
x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. No regression.
x86_64: Booted on qemu. No regression.

Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <[email protected]>

--
Regards
Sudip

2021-07-06 22:46:31

by Shuah Khan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/6] 5.4.130-rc1 review

On 7/5/21 5:00 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.4.130 release.
> There are 6 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 Wed 07 Jul 2021 11:00:14 AM UTC.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/patch/?id=linux-5.4.y&id2=v5.4.129
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.4.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha

Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions.

Tested-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>

thanks,
-- Shuah