Greg KH | 13 Aug 23:47 2010
Picon

[0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

NOTE!

If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.

I didn't want to include them in the last .27-stable release because of
this, so any testing is much appreciated.  Especially if you happen to
run across any signal and/or stack issues that might be floating around
in the ether...

----

This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.52 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
us know.  If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.

Responses should be made by Monday, August 16, 2010, 20:00:00 UTC.
Anything received after that time might be too late.

The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
	kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/stable-review/patch-2.6.27.52-rc1.gz
and the diffstat can be found below.

thanks,

greg k-h

(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 13 Aug 23:42 2010
Picon

[2/3] mm: fix missing page table unmap for stack guard page failure case

2.6.27-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

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

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>

commit 5528f9132cf65d4d892bcbc5684c61e7822b21e9 upstream.

.. which didn't show up in my tests because it's a no-op on x86-64 and
most other architectures.  But we enter the function with the last-level
page table mapped, and should unmap it at exit.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh <at> suse.de>

---
 mm/memory.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
 <at>  <at>  -2428,8 +2428,10  <at>  <at>  static int do_anonymous_page(struct mm_s
 	spinlock_t *ptl;
 	pte_t entry;

-	if (check_stack_guard_page(vma, address) < 0)
+	if (check_stack_guard_page(vma, address) < 0) {
+		pte_unmap(page_table);
 		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
+	}
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 13 Aug 23:42 2010
Picon

[3/3] x86: dont send SIGBUS for kernel page faults

2.6.27-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

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

Based on commit 96054569190bdec375fe824e48ca1f4e3b53dd36 upstream,
authored by Linus Torvalds.

This is my backport to the .27 kernel tree, hopefully preserving
the same functionality.

Original commit message:
	It's wrong for several reasons, but the most direct one is that the
	fault may be for the stack accesses to set up a previous SIGBUS.  When
	we have a kernel exception, the kernel exception handler does all the
	fixups, not some user-level signal handler.

	Even apart from the nested SIGBUS issue, it's also wrong to give out
	kernel fault addresses in the signal handler info block, or to send a
	SIGBUS when a system call already returns EFAULT.

Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh <at> suse.de>

---
 arch/x86/mm/fault.c |    9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
 <at>  <at>  -589,6 +589,7  <at>  <at>  void __kprobes do_page_fault(struct pt_r
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 13 Aug 23:42 2010
Picon

[1/3] mm: keep a guard page below a grow-down stack segment

2.6.27-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

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

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>

commit 320b2b8de12698082609ebbc1a17165727f4c893 upstream.

This is a rather minimally invasive patch to solve the problem of the
user stack growing into a memory mapped area below it.  Whenever we fill
the first page of the stack segment, expand the segment down by one
page.

Now, admittedly some odd application might _want_ the stack to grow down
into the preceding memory mapping, and so we may at some point need to
make this a process tunable (some people might also want to have more
than a single page of guarding), but let's try the minimal approach
first.

Tested with trivial application that maps a single page just below the
stack, and then starts recursing.  Without this, we will get a SIGSEGV
_after_ the stack has smashed the mapping.  With this patch, we'll get a
nice SIGBUS just as the stack touches the page just above the mapping.

Requested-by: Keith Packard <keithp <at> keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh <at> suse.de>

---
 mm/memory.c |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
(Continue reading)

Grant Coady | 14 Aug 00:36 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote:

>NOTE!
>
>If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
>a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
>have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.

I surely will, just as soon as the thing appears ;)  Ftp and http 
return nothing just now.

Grant.
>
>I didn't want to include them in the last .27-stable release because of
>this, so any testing is much appreciated.  Especially if you happen to
>run across any signal and/or stack issues that might be floating around
>in the ether...
>
>----
>
>This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.52 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
>us know.  If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
>to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
>
>Responses should be made by Monday, August 16, 2010, 20:00:00 UTC.
>Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
>The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 14 Aug 01:07 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:36:34AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >NOTE!
> >
> >If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
> >a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
> >have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.
> 
> I surely will, just as soon as the thing appears ;)  Ftp and http 
> return nothing just now.

Odd, it should be there.

Here it is, attached below.  It's small enough to send out this way.

thanks,

greg k-h
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 5382c55..c7fde5f 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
 <at>  <at>  -1,7 +1,7  <at>  <at> 
 VERSION = 2
 PATCHLEVEL = 6
 SUBLEVEL = 27
-EXTRAVERSION = .51
(Continue reading)

Grant Coady | 14 Aug 01:47 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

Hi Greg,

I scraped the patches out of the messages and edited Makefile :)

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:07:12 -0700, you wrote:

>On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:36:34AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> >NOTE!
>> >
>> >If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
>> >a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
>> >have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.

Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:

WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
Modules linked in:
Pid: 320, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27.52-rc1a #57
 [<c011b54f>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5f/0x90
 [<c0145a53>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x93/0x420
 [<c01456bd>] buffered_rmqueue+0x11d/0x210
 [<c015e09a>] allocate_slab+0x4a/0xd0
 [<c015e149>] setup_object+0x29/0x30
 [<c015e204>] new_slab+0xb4/0x130
 [<c015e6ec>] __slab_alloc+0xac/0x120
 [<c01529e7>] acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0
 [<c0152afa>] expand_stack+0x7a/0x90
 [<c014fc61>] do_anonymous_page+0x121/0x130
(Continue reading)

Linus Torvalds | 14 Aug 02:12 2010

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Grant Coady <gcoady.lk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
>
> WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()

That would seem to be because of the lack of commit 05fa199d45c in
2.6.27. It got marked for stable, but probably never went so far back
as 2.6.27.

That said, I do wonder if it is worth it maintaining a 2.6.27 that the
maintainer can't even boot on his machines any more.

                   Linus
Greg KH | 14 Aug 02:47 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:12:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Grant Coady <gcoady.lk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
> >
> > WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
> 
> That would seem to be because of the lack of commit 05fa199d45c in
> 2.6.27. It got marked for stable, but probably never went so far back
> as 2.6.27.

Yup, I didn't include it there.  Grant, if you add that, does the
warning go away?

> That said, I do wonder if it is worth it maintaining a 2.6.27 that the
> maintainer can't even boot on his machines any more.

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder about it as well.  I think it's expected
lifespan is very near to the end.

thanks,

greg k-h
Grant Coady | 14 Aug 09:34 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:47:29 -0700, you wrote:

>On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:12:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Grant Coady <gcoady.lk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
>> >
>> > WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
>> 
>> That would seem to be because of the lack of commit 05fa199d45c in
>> 2.6.27. It got marked for stable, but probably never went so far back
>> as 2.6.27.
>
>Yup, I didn't include it there.  Grant, if you add that, does the
>warning go away?

I'm sorry, no idea at all how to cherry pick that, I don't know git :( 

Google brings up this thread but not that commit, point me at it and 
I'll try it.  

Grant.

>
>> That said, I do wonder if it is worth it maintaining a 2.6.27 that the
>> maintainer can't even boot on his machines any more.
>
>Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder about it as well.  I think it's expected
>lifespan is very near to the end.
>
(Continue reading)

Willy Tarreau | 14 Aug 09:43 2010
Picon

Re: [Stable-review] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:34:55PM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:47:29 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:12:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Grant Coady <gcoady.lk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
> >> >
> >> > WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
> >> 
> >> That would seem to be because of the lack of commit 05fa199d45c in
> >> 2.6.27. It got marked for stable, but probably never went so far back
> >> as 2.6.27.
> >
> >Yup, I didn't include it there.  Grant, if you add that, does the
> >warning go away?
> 
> I'm sorry, no idea at all how to cherry pick that, I don't know git :( 
> 
> Google brings up this thread but not that commit, point me at it and 
> I'll try it.  

Simply apply this patch (even by hand) :

   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=05fa199d45c

It solved the warnings for me.

Cheers,
Willy
(Continue reading)

Grant Coady | 14 Aug 10:52 2010
Picon

Re: [Stable-review] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:43:33 +0200, you wrote:

>On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:34:55PM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:47:29 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> >On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:12:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Grant Coady <gcoady.lk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
>> >> >
>> >> > WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
>> >> 
>> >> That would seem to be because of the lack of commit 05fa199d45c in
>> >> 2.6.27. It got marked for stable, but probably never went so far back
>> >> as 2.6.27.
>> >
>> >Yup, I didn't include it there.  Grant, if you add that, does the
>> >warning go away?
>> 
>> I'm sorry, no idea at all how to cherry pick that, I don't know git :( 
>> 
>> Google brings up this thread but not that commit, point me at it and 
>> I'll try it.  
>
>Simply apply this patch (even by hand) :
>
>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=05fa199d45c
>
>It solved the warnings for me.

(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 14 Aug 02:11 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:47:08AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I scraped the patches out of the messages and edited Makefile :)
> 
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:07:12 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:36:34AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote:
> >> 
> >> >NOTE!
> >> >
> >> >If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
> >> >a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
> >> >have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.
> 
> Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
> 
> WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
> Modules linked in:
> Pid: 320, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27.52-rc1a #57
>  [<c011b54f>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5f/0x90
>  [<c0145a53>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x93/0x420
>  [<c01456bd>] buffered_rmqueue+0x11d/0x210
>  [<c015e09a>] allocate_slab+0x4a/0xd0
>  [<c015e149>] setup_object+0x29/0x30
>  [<c015e204>] new_slab+0xb4/0x130
>  [<c015e6ec>] __slab_alloc+0xac/0x120
>  [<c01529e7>] acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0
>  [<c0152afa>] expand_stack+0x7a/0x90
(Continue reading)

Linus Torvalds | 14 Aug 02:51 2010

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de> wrote:
>
> That's a warning that current->mm is null.  I don't know enough about
> the mm subsystem to say if this is normal or not, and I don't at first
> glance, see how this patch could have caused this to happen.

We call that whole "expand_stack()" through handle_mm_fault(), and
that's _not_ called just for the process itself. So "current->mm" is
sometimes simply the wrong thing to use - like when you access the VM
of another process (during fork for the argument setup of the new VM,
or during ptrace etc).

Which is why I think commit 05fa199d45c should fix it. It makes the
stack expansion thing use the right mm. Which it just _happened_ to do
before, because it was always called just from the faulting code where
current->mm happened to be the right mm.

But I really don't know if there might be other issues lurking too.

                        Linus
Greg KH | 14 Aug 04:53 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:51:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > That's a warning that current->mm is null.  I don't know enough about
> > the mm subsystem to say if this is normal or not, and I don't at first
> > glance, see how this patch could have caused this to happen.
> 
> We call that whole "expand_stack()" through handle_mm_fault(), and
> that's _not_ called just for the process itself. So "current->mm" is
> sometimes simply the wrong thing to use - like when you access the VM
> of another process (during fork for the argument setup of the new VM,
> or during ptrace etc).
> 
> Which is why I think commit 05fa199d45c should fix it. It makes the
> stack expansion thing use the right mm. Which it just _happened_ to do
> before, because it was always called just from the faulting code where
> current->mm happened to be the right mm.
> 
> But I really don't know if there might be other issues lurking too.

Ok, I'll go add that commit, and I unpacked my older machine that runs
the .27 kernel and will beat on it with that box tomorrow to see if
anything else pops up.

thanks,

greg k-h
Willy Tarreau | 14 Aug 07:43 2010
Picon

Re: [Stable-review] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:53:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:51:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a warning that current->mm is null.  I don't know enough about
> > > the mm subsystem to say if this is normal or not, and I don't at first
> > > glance, see how this patch could have caused this to happen.
> > 
> > We call that whole "expand_stack()" through handle_mm_fault(), and
> > that's _not_ called just for the process itself. So "current->mm" is
> > sometimes simply the wrong thing to use - like when you access the VM
> > of another process (during fork for the argument setup of the new VM,
> > or during ptrace etc).
> > 
> > Which is why I think commit 05fa199d45c should fix it. It makes the
> > stack expansion thing use the right mm. Which it just _happened_ to do
> > before, because it was always called just from the faulting code where
> > current->mm happened to be the right mm.
> > 
> > But I really don't know if there might be other issues lurking too.
> 
> Ok, I'll go add that commit, and I unpacked my older machine that runs
> the .27 kernel and will beat on it with that box tomorrow to see if
> anything else pops up.

Greg, I confirm that 05fa199d45c fixes the warnings. I did not have them
in .51, got them with .52-rc1 and got rid of it with the patch above.

Regards,
Willy
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 14 Aug 20:47 2010

Re: [stable] [Stable-review] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:43:35AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:53:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:51:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a warning that current->mm is null.  I don't know enough about
> > > > the mm subsystem to say if this is normal or not, and I don't at first
> > > > glance, see how this patch could have caused this to happen.
> > > 
> > > We call that whole "expand_stack()" through handle_mm_fault(), and
> > > that's _not_ called just for the process itself. So "current->mm" is
> > > sometimes simply the wrong thing to use - like when you access the VM
> > > of another process (during fork for the argument setup of the new VM,
> > > or during ptrace etc).
> > > 
> > > Which is why I think commit 05fa199d45c should fix it. It makes the
> > > stack expansion thing use the right mm. Which it just _happened_ to do
> > > before, because it was always called just from the faulting code where
> > > current->mm happened to be the right mm.
> > > 
> > > But I really don't know if there might be other issues lurking too.
> > 
> > Ok, I'll go add that commit, and I unpacked my older machine that runs
> > the .27 kernel and will beat on it with that box tomorrow to see if
> > anything else pops up.
> 
> Greg, I confirm that 05fa199d45c fixes the warnings. I did not have them
> in .51, got them with .52-rc1 and got rid of it with the patch above.

Wonderful.  I've released a 2.6.27.52-rc2 with this fix in it.  I'm
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 14 Aug 23:46 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:53:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:51:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a warning that current->mm is null.  I don't know enough about
> > > the mm subsystem to say if this is normal or not, and I don't at first
> > > glance, see how this patch could have caused this to happen.
> > 
> > We call that whole "expand_stack()" through handle_mm_fault(), and
> > that's _not_ called just for the process itself. So "current->mm" is
> > sometimes simply the wrong thing to use - like when you access the VM
> > of another process (during fork for the argument setup of the new VM,
> > or during ptrace etc).
> > 
> > Which is why I think commit 05fa199d45c should fix it. It makes the
> > stack expansion thing use the right mm. Which it just _happened_ to do
> > before, because it was always called just from the faulting code where
> > current->mm happened to be the right mm.
> > 
> > But I really don't know if there might be other issues lurking too.
> 
> Ok, I'll go add that commit, and I unpacked my older machine that runs
> the .27 kernel and will beat on it with that box tomorrow to see if
> anything else pops up.

It's booting here, but I'm out of time and have to go on vacation until
Monday night and I'll pick this up on Tuesday again when I get back.

thanks,

(Continue reading)

Grant Coady | 14 Aug 09:24 2010
Picon

Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:11:58 -0700, you wrote:

>On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:47:08AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>> 
>> I scraped the patches out of the messages and edited Makefile :)
>> 
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:07:12 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> >On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:36:34AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >NOTE!
>> >> >
>> >> >If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
>> >> >a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
>> >> >have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.
>> 
>> Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
>> 
>> WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
>> Modules linked in:
>> Pid: 320, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27.52-rc1a #57
>>  [<c011b54f>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5f/0x90
>>  [<c0145a53>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x93/0x420
>>  [<c01456bd>] buffered_rmqueue+0x11d/0x210
>>  [<c015e09a>] allocate_slab+0x4a/0xd0
>>  [<c015e149>] setup_object+0x29/0x30
>>  [<c015e204>] new_slab+0xb4/0x130
>>  [<c015e6ec>] __slab_alloc+0xac/0x120
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 14 Aug 21:12 2010

Re: [stable] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:24:36PM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:11:58 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:47:08AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >> 
> >> I scraped the patches out of the messages and edited Makefile :)
> >> 
> >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:07:12 -0700, you wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:36:34AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >NOTE!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
> >> >> >a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
> >> >> >have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.
> >> 
> >> Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg:
> >> 
> >> WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0()
> >> Modules linked in:
> >> Pid: 320, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27.52-rc1a #57
> >>  [<c011b54f>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5f/0x90
> >>  [<c0145a53>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x93/0x420
> >>  [<c01456bd>] buffered_rmqueue+0x11d/0x210
> >>  [<c015e09a>] allocate_slab+0x4a/0xd0
> >>  [<c015e149>] setup_object+0x29/0x30
> >>  [<c015e204>] new_slab+0xb4/0x130
(Continue reading)

Grant Coady | 15 Aug 03:28 2010
Picon

Re: [stable] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:12:24 -0700, you wrote:

>Thanks, can you try 2.6.52-rc2 now?  It should have the fix for this in
>it.

Yup, looks good here :)

http://bugsplatter.id.au/kernel/boxen/deltree/dmesg-2.6.27.52-rc2a.gz

Grant.
Willy Tarreau | 14 Aug 00:45 2010
Picon

Re: [Stable-review] [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:47:04PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> NOTE!
> 
> If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?  It contains
> a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to
> have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move.
> 
> I didn't want to include them in the last .27-stable release because of
> this, so any testing is much appreciated.  Especially if you happen to
> run across any signal and/or stack issues that might be floating around
> in the ether...

I will try it, Greg. If you want specific tests, do not hesitate to tell
me which ones.

Willy

Gabor Z. Papp | 14 Aug 13:11 2010
Picon

Re:2.6.27.52 stable review

* Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de>:

| If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?

BTW seems like 2.6.27 no more combatible with GNU Make 3.82:

$ make oldconfig
Makefile:443: *** mixed implicit and normal rules.  Stop.

Same with line 1609.

Attachment (Makefile.diff): text/x-patch, 897 bytes
Grant Coady | 14 Aug 17:00 2010
Picon

Re: 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:11:43 +0200, you wrote:

>* Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de>:
>
>| If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?
>
>BTW seems like 2.6.27 no more combatible with GNU Make 3.82:
>
>$ make oldconfig
>Makefile:443: *** mixed implicit and normal rules.  Stop.
>
>Same with line 1609.

I have:
grant <at> deltree:~$ make --version
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This program built for i486-slackware-linux-gnu

and 2.6.27 builds here just fine.

Grant.
Greg KH | 14 Aug 23:01 2010
Picon

Re: 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:11:43PM +0200, Gabor Z. Papp wrote:
> * Greg KH <gregkh <at> suse.de>:
> 
> | If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?
> 
> BTW seems like 2.6.27 no more combatible with GNU Make 3.82:
> 
> $ make oldconfig
> Makefile:443: *** mixed implicit and normal rules.  Stop.
> 
> Same with line 1609.

Nothing has changed with the main Makefile with the exception of
changing the version number for a very long time.

Did something else change on your system?

odd,

greg k-h
Thomas Backlund | 15 Aug 00:11 2010

Re: 2.6.27.52 stable review

Greg KH skrev 15.8.2010 00:01:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:11:43PM +0200, Gabor Z. Papp wrote:
>> * Greg KH<gregkh <at> suse.de>:
>>
>> | If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?
>>
>> BTW seems like 2.6.27 no more combatible with GNU Make 3.82:
>>
>> $ make oldconfig
>> Makefile:443: *** mixed implicit and normal rules.  Stop.
>>
>> Same with line 1609.
>
> Nothing has changed with the main Makefile with the exception of
> changing the version number for a very long time.
>
> Did something else change on your system?
>
> odd,
>

2.6.27 needs this wich went in after 2.6.28-rc8:

kbuild: fix make incompatibility
author	Sam Ravnborg <sam <at> ravnborg.org>	
	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:00:45 +0000 (23:00 +0100)
committer	Sam Ravnborg <sam <at> ravnborg.org>	
	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:00:45 +0000 (23:00 +0100)
commit	31110ebbec8688c6e9597b641101afc94e1c762a
tree	208aaad7e40cbb86bc125760664911da8cd4eebb	tree | snapshot
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 24 Aug 00:27 2010

Re: 2.6.27.52 stable review

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 01:11:35AM +0300, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> Greg KH skrev 15.8.2010 00:01:
> >On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:11:43PM +0200, Gabor Z. Papp wrote:
> >>* Greg KH<gregkh <at> suse.de>:
> >>
> >>| If I could get some people to please test this -rc release?
> >>
> >>BTW seems like 2.6.27 no more combatible with GNU Make 3.82:
> >>
> >>$ make oldconfig
> >>Makefile:443: *** mixed implicit and normal rules.  Stop.
> >>
> >>Same with line 1609.
> >
> >Nothing has changed with the main Makefile with the exception of
> >changing the version number for a very long time.
> >
> >Did something else change on your system?
> >
> >odd,
> >
> 
> 2.6.27 needs this wich went in after 2.6.28-rc8:
> 
> kbuild: fix make incompatibility
> author	Sam Ravnborg <sam <at> ravnborg.org>	
> 	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:00:45 +0000 (23:00 +0100)
> committer	Sam Ravnborg <sam <at> ravnborg.org>	
> 	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:00:45 +0000 (23:00 +0100)
> commit	31110ebbec8688c6e9597b641101afc94e1c762a
(Continue reading)


Gmane