Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40526-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:48:24 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org,
	lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
	f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com,
	srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de, conor@kernel.org,
	allen.lkml@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/286] 5.10.209-rc1 review
Message-ID: <2024012646-glove-cabana-6e64@gregkh>
References: <20240122235732.009174833@linuxfoundation.org>
 <6b563537-b62f-428e-96d1-2a228da99077@roeck-us.net>
 <2024012636-clubbed-radial-1997@gregkh>
 <2f342268-8517-4c06-8785-96a588d20c63@roeck-us.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2f342268-8517-4c06-8785-96a588d20c63@roeck-us.net>

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:17:23AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/26/24 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:46:42AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 1/22/24 15:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.209 release.
> > > > There are 286 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, 24 Jan 2024 23:56:49 +0000.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > 
> > > [ ... ]
> > > 
> > > > zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
> > > >       virtio-crypto: implement RSA algorithm
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Curious: Why was this (and its subsequent fixes) backported to v5.10.y ?
> > > It is quite beyond a bug fix. Also, unless I am really missing something,
> > > the series (or at least this patch) was not applied to v5.15.y, so we now
> > > have functionality in v5.10.y which is not in v5.15.y.
> > 
> > See the commit text, it was a dependency of a later fix and documented
> > as such.
> > 
> > Having it in 5.10 and not 5.15 is a bit odd, I agree, so patches are
> > gladly accepted :)
> > 
> 
> We reverted the entire series from the merge because it results in a build
> failure for us.
> 
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_akcipher_algs.c:10:
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/mpi.h:21:
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/scatterlist.h:5:
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/string.h:293:
> /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/fortify-string.h:512:4: error: call to __read_overflow2_field declared with 'warning' attribute: detected read beyond size of field (2nd parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror,-Wattribute-warning]
>                         __read_overflow2_field(q_size_field, size);
> 
> I also see that upstream (starting with 6.1) when trying to build it with clang,
> so I guess it is one of those bug-for-bug compatibility things. I really have
> no idea what causes it, or why we don't see the problem when building
> chromeos-6.1 or chromeos-6.6, but (so far) only with chromeos-5.10 after
> merging 5.10.209 into it. Making things worse, the problem isn't _always_
> seen. Sometimes I can compile the file in 6.1.y without error, sometimes not.
> I have no idea what triggers the problem. Of course, on top of all that,
> the error message is completely useless.
> 
> Either case, we don't use that code in chromeos-5.10, so reverting the
> entire series from the merge was the easiest way to proceed. But we really
> don't have an incentive to apply the series to v5.15.y because we don't
> need/use it there, and we might end up having to revert it from there
> as well if it is applied.

If this is causing build issues, I'll drop this, I was worried about it
during review but no one had any reports then, but now it looks like it
should be reworked.  I'll go revert them, thanks.

greg k-h