[PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +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-5.10.100-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 <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    Linux 5.10.100-rc1

Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
    crypto: api - Move cryptomgr soft dependency into algapi

Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
    KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal guest

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    moxart: fix potential use-after-free on remove path


-------------

Diffstat:

 Makefile                      | 4 ++--
 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c      | 2 ++
 crypto/algapi.c               | 1 +
 crypto/api.c                  | 1 -
 drivers/mmc/host/moxart-mmc.c | 2 +-
 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

[PATCH 5.10 1/3] moxart: fix potential use-after-free on remove path

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit bd2db32e7c3e35bd4d9b8bbff689434a50893546 upstream.

It was reported that the mmc host structure could be accessed after it
was freed in moxart_remove(), so fix this by saving the base register of
the device and using it instead of the pointer dereference.

Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Cc: Xin Xiong <xiongx18@fudan.edu.cn>
Cc: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Reported-by: whitehat002 <hackyzh002@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220127071638.4057899-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/mmc/host/moxart-mmc.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/mmc/host/moxart-mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/moxart-mmc.c
@@ -708,12 +708,12 @@ static int moxart_remove(struct platform
 	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(host->dma_chan_rx))
 		dma_release_channel(host->dma_chan_rx);
 	mmc_remove_host(mmc);
-	mmc_free_host(mmc);
 
 	writel(0, host->base + REG_INTERRUPT_MASK);
 	writel(0, host->base + REG_POWER_CONTROL);
 	writel(readl(host->base + REG_CLOCK_CONTROL) | CLK_OFF,
 	       host->base + REG_CLOCK_CONTROL);
+	mmc_free_host(mmc);
 
 	return 0;
 }

[PATCH 5.10 2/3] KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal guest

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>

commit 2c212e1baedcd782b2535a3f86bc491977677c0e upstream.

Refuse SIDA memops on guests which are not protected.
For normal guests, the secure instruction data address designation,
which determines the location we access, is not under control of KVM.

Fixes: 19e122776886 (KVM: S390: protvirt: Introduce instruction data area bounce buffer)
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -4654,6 +4654,8 @@ static long kvm_s390_guest_sida_op(struc
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (mop->size + mop->sida_offset > sida_size(vcpu->arch.sie_block))
 		return -E2BIG;
+	if (!kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu))
+		return -EINVAL;
 
 	switch (mop->op) {
 	case KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ:

[PATCH 5.10 3/3] crypto: api - Move cryptomgr soft dependency into algapi

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

commit c6ce9c5831cae515d375a01b97ae1778689acf19 upstream.

The soft dependency on cryptomgr is only needed in algapi because
if algapi isn't present then no algorithms can be loaded.  This
also fixes the case where api is built-in but algapi is built as
a module as the soft dependency would otherwise get lost.

Fixes: 8ab23d547f65 ("crypto: api - Add softdep on cryptomgr")
Reported-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Tested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 crypto/algapi.c |    1 +
 crypto/api.c    |    1 -
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/crypto/algapi.c
+++ b/crypto/algapi.c
@@ -1295,3 +1295,4 @@ module_exit(crypto_algapi_exit);
 
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Cryptographic algorithms API");
+MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: cryptomgr");
--- a/crypto/api.c
+++ b/crypto/api.c
@@ -603,4 +603,3 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(crypto_req_done);
 
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Cryptographic core API");
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: cryptomgr");

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

Hi!

> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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):

https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-5.10.y

Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de>

Best regards,
                                                                Pavel
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Shuah Khan]

On 2/9/22 12:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +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-5.10.100-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 <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Naresh Kamboju]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 00:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +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-5.10.100-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 <lkft@linaro.org>

## Build
* kernel: 5.10.100-rc1
* git: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/stable/linux-stable-rc
* git branch: linux-5.10.y
* git commit: f1b074cc52b4cb5f2f78985508ae344e6f066252
* git describe: v5.10.98-79-gf1b074cc52b4
* test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-5.10.y/build/v5.10.98-79-gf1b074cc52b4

## Test Regressions (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No test regressions found.

## Metric Regressions (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No metric regressions found.

## Test Fixes (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No test fixes found.

## Metric Fixes (compared to v5.10.98-75-g9f5cb871ceb9)
No metric fixes found.

## Test result summary
total: 76874, pass: 66765, fail: 223, skip: 9288, xfail: 598

## Build Summary
* arc: 10 total, 10 passed, 0 failed
* arm: 259 total, 259 passed, 0 failed
* arm64: 37 total, 37 passed, 0 failed
* i386: 35 total, 35 passed, 0 failed
* mips: 34 total, 34 passed, 0 failed
* sparc: 12 total, 12 passed, 0 failed
* x86_64: 25 total, 25 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-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-kvm
* kselftest-lib
* kselftest-livepatch
* kselftest-membarrier
* 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-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

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Sudip Mukherjee]

Hi Greg,

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:14:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +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/734
[2]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/738


Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>

--
Regards
Sudip

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Florian Fainelli]

On 2/9/2022 11:14 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +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-5.10.100-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 <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
-- 
Florian

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Guenter Roeck]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:14:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

Build results:
	total: 161 pass: 161 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
	total: 477 pass: 477 fail: 0

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Guenter

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Samuel Zou]

On 2022/2/10 3:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +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-5.10.100-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
> 

Tested on arm64 and x86 for 5.10.100-rc1,

Kernel repo:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Branch: linux-5.10.y
Version: 5.10.100-rc1
Commit: f1b074cc52b4cb5f2f78985508ae344e6f066252
Compiler: gcc version 7.3.0 (GCC)

arm64:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testcase Result Summary:
total: 9013
passed: 9013
failed: 0
timeout: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

x86:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testcase Result Summary:
total: 9013
passed: 9013
failed: 0
timeout: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Tested-by: Hulk Robot <hulkrobot@huawei.com>

Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/3] 5.10.100-rc1 review

[Slade Watkins]

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022, at 2:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.100 release.
> There are 3 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 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:12:41 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.

Compiled and booted 5.10.100-rc1 on my x86_64 test system successfully without errors or regressions.

Tested-by: Slade Watkins <slade@sladewatkins.com>

Thanks,
Slade