On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 2:22 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 02:15:46PM +0530, Pranav Tyagi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 1:58 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 01:16:01PM +0530, Pranav Tyagi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 7:39 PM Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
[ Sasha's backport helper bot ]
Hi,
✅ All tests passed successfully. No issues detected. No action required from the submitter.
The upstream commit SHA1 provided is correct: 575689fc0ffa6c4bb4e72fd18e31a6525a6124e0
WARNING: Author mismatch between patch and upstream commit: Backport author: Pranav Tyagipranav.tyagi03@gmail.com Commit author: Guo Xuenanguoxuenan@huawei.com
Status in newer kernel trees: 6.15.y | Present (exact SHA1) 6.12.y | Present (exact SHA1) 6.6.y | Present (exact SHA1) 6.1.y | Present (different SHA1: 0d889ae85fcf)
Note: The patch differs from the upstream commit:
1: 575689fc0ffa6 ! 1: 9876b048d8f68 xfs: fix super block buf log item UAF during force shutdown @@ Metadata ## Commit message ## xfs: fix super block buf log item UAF during force shutdown
+ [ Upstream commit 575689fc0ffa6c4bb4e72fd18e31a6525a6124e0 ] + xfs log io error will trigger xlog shut down, and end_io worker call xlog_state_shutdown_callbacks to unpin and release the buf log item. The race condition is that when there are some thread doing transaction @@ Commit message ================================================================== Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint + [ Backport to 5.15: context cleanly applied with no semantic changes. + Build-tested. ] + Signed-off-by: Guo Xuenan <guoxuenan@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> + Signed-off-by: Pranav Tyagi <pranav.tyagi03@gmail.com> ## fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c ## @@ fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: xfs_buf_item_relse(
Results of testing on various branches:
| Branch | Patch Apply | Build Test | |---------------------------|-------------|------------| | stable/linux-5.15.y | Success | Success |
Hi,
Just following up on this 5.15.y backport. Please let me know if anything else is needed from my side.
xfs patches need to go through the xfs maintainers for their approval. "build tested" just doesn't cut it at all, you MUST actually test this at runtime. Otherwise, why would you even want this patch applied if you don't have xfs systems that you care about?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Apologies for the oversight. I had assumed that a build test would suffice for a backport since the patch is already merged upstream. I now understand the importance of runtime testing, even for backports. I’ll test it on the XFS setup and resend the patch.
Why do you want/need this backported if it wasn't even tested? Why do the backport at all?
confused,
greg k-h
I understand your concern. I came across the upstream patch while reviewing stable-eligible commits and noticed it hadn’t been backported. I’ve also been going through the XFS code recently and this seemed like a good opportunity to get involved. This was the first time I attempted a backport and was not aware of the workflow.
I realize I should have tested it more thoroughly. Thanks for the push. I’ll test it properly on XFS and resend it if at all required.
Regards Pranav Tyagi