This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.95-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-5.10.y
and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
-------------
Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Linux 5.10.95-rc1
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
select: Fix indefinitely sleeping task in poll_schedule_timeout()
David Matlack <[email protected]>
KVM: x86/mmu: Fix write-protection of PTs mapped by the TDP MMU
Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
rcu: Tighten rcu_advance_cbs_nowake() checks
Manish Chopra <[email protected]>
bnx2x: Invalidate fastpath HSI version for VFs
Manish Chopra <[email protected]>
bnx2x: Utilize firmware 7.13.21.0
Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
drm/i915: Flush TLBs before releasing backing store
-------------
Diffstat:
Makefile | 4 +-
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 6 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object_types.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c | 10 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 2 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_types.h | 2 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 11 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c | 3 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 26 +++++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.h | 2 +
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x.h | 11 ++-
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_cmn.c | 6 +-
.../net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_fw_defs.h | 2 +
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_hsi.h | 3 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_main.c | 75 ++++++++++-----
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_sriov.c | 13 ++-
fs/select.c | 63 +++++++------
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 7 +-
19 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
From: David Matlack <[email protected]>
commit 7c8a4742c4abe205ec9daf416c9d42fd6b406e8e upstream.
When the TDP MMU is write-protection GFNs for page table protection (as
opposed to for dirty logging, or due to the HVA not being writable), it
checks if the SPTE is already write-protected and if so skips modifying
the SPTE and the TLB flush.
This behavior is incorrect because it fails to check if the SPTE
is write-protected for page table protection, i.e. fails to check
that MMU-writable is '0'. If the SPTE was write-protected for dirty
logging but not page table protection, the SPTE could locklessly be made
writable, and vCPUs could still be running with writable mappings cached
in their TLB.
Fix this by only skipping setting the SPTE if the SPTE is already
write-protected *and* MMU-writable is already clear. Technically,
checking only MMU-writable would suffice; a SPTE cannot be writable
without MMU-writable being set. But check both to be paranoid and
because it arguably yields more readable code.
Fixes: 46044f72c382 ("kvm: x86/mmu: Support write protection for nesting in tdp MMU")
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: David Matlack <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
@@ -1130,12 +1130,12 @@ static bool write_protect_gfn(struct kvm
bool spte_set = false;
tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, gfn, gfn + 1) {
- if (!is_writable_pte(iter.old_spte))
- break;
-
new_spte = iter.old_spte &
~(PT_WRITABLE_MASK | SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE);
+ if (new_spte == iter.old_spte)
+ break;
+
tdp_mmu_set_spte(kvm, &iter, new_spte);
spte_set = true;
}
Hi!
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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.
CIP testing did not find any new kernel problems here (but we still
hit the gmp.h compilation issue):
CIP testing did not find any problems here:
https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-5.10.y
Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
On 1/27/2022 10:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.95-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-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
On ARCH_BRCMSTB using 32-bit and 64-bit ARM kernels:
Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
--
Florian
On 1/27/22 11:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.95-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-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions.
Tested-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 23:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.95-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-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
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: 5.10.95-rc1
* git: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
* git branch: linux-5.10.y
* git commit: a2441d7f51b176a085cf4ea62e1071ffb4dfcf2c
* git describe: v5.10.94-7-ga2441d7f51b1
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/build/v5.10.94-7-ga2441d7f51b1
## Test Regressions (compared to v5.10.93-561-gf32eb088b139)
No test regressions found.
## Metric Regressions (compared to v5.10.93-561-gf32eb088b139)
No metric regressions found.
## Test Fixes (compared to v5.10.93-561-gf32eb088b139)
No test fixes found.
## Metric Fixes (compared to v5.10.93-561-gf32eb088b139)
No metric fixes found.
## Test result summary
total: 84455, pass: 72139, fail: 461, skip: 11140, xfail: 715
## Build Summary
* arc: 10 total, 10 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 259 total, 259 passed, 0 failed
* arm64: 37 total, 37 passed, 0 failed
* dragonboard-410c: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* hi6220-hikey: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* i386: 36 total, 36 passed, 0 failed
* juno-r2: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* mips: 34 total, 34 passed, 0 failed
* parisc: 12 total, 12 passed, 0 failed
* powerpc: 52 total, 46 passed, 6 failed
* riscv: 24 total, 22 passed, 2 failed
* s390: 18 total, 18 passed, 0 failed
* sh: 24 total, 24 passed, 0 failed
* sparc: 12 total, 12 passed, 0 failed
* x15: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* x86: 1 total, 1 passed, 0 failed
* x86_64: 37 total, 37 passed, 0 failed
## Test suites summary
* fwts
* igt-gpu-tools
* kselftest-android
* kselftest-arm64
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_c_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_j_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_jc_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.bti_none_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.nohint_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.btitest.paciasp_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_c_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_j_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_jc_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.bti_none_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.nohint_func
* kselftest-arm64/arm64.nobtitest.paciasp_func
* kselftest-bpf
* kselftest-breakpoints
* kselftest-capabilities
* kselftest-cgroup
* kselftest-clone3
* kselftest-core
* kselftest-cpu-hotplug
* kselftest-cpufreq
* kselftest-drivers
* 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-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
* kunit
* 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
* rcutorture
* ssuite
* v4l2-compliance
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
Hi Greg,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:09:16PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
Build test:
mips (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 63 configs -> no new failure
arm (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 105 configs -> no new failure
arm64 (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 3 configs -> no failure
x86_64 (gcc version 11.2.1 20220121): 4 configs -> no failure
Boot test:
x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. No regression.
x86_64: Booted on qemu. No regression. [1]
arm64: Booted on rpi4b (4GB model). No regression. [2]
[1]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/666
[2]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/670
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <[email protected]>
--
Regards
Sudip
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:09:16 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +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/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.95-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-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
5.10.95-rc1 Successfully Compiled and booted on my Raspberry PI 4b (8g) (bcm2711)
Tested-by: Fox Chen <[email protected]>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:09:16PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.95 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 Sat, 29 Jan 2022 18:02:51 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
Build results:
total: 159 pass: 159 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
total: 477 pass: 477 fail: 0
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Guenter