CentOS virt - Jan 2018 - Xen 4.6.6-9 (with XPTI meltdown mitigation) packages making their way to centos-virt-xen-testing

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Nathan March <nathan at gt.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Hmm.. isn't this the ldisc bug that was discussed a few months ago
on
> this
> list,
> > and a patch was applied to virt-sig kernel aswell?
> >
> > Call trace looks similar..
>
> Good memory! I'd forgotten about that despite being the one who ran
into
> it.
>
> Looks like that patch was just removed in 4.9.75-30 which I just upgraded
> this system to: http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=21122
> Previously I was on 4.9.63-29 which does not have this problem, and does
> have the ldisc patch. So I guess the question is for Johnny, why was it
> removed?
>
> In the meantime, I'll revert the kernel and follow up if I see any
further
> problems.
>
>
IIRC the patch has been removed from the spec file because it has been
merged upstream in 4.9.71.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20180123/5701edef/attachment-0002.html>

On 01/23/2018 05:57 PM, Karl Johnson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Nathan March <nathan at gt.net
> <mailto:nathan at gt.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     > Hmm.. isn't this the ldisc bug that was discussed a few months
ago on this
>     list,
>     > and a patch was applied to virt-sig kernel aswell?
>     >
>     > Call trace looks similar..
> 
>     Good memory! I'd forgotten about that despite being the one who ran
>     into it.
> 
>     Looks like that patch was just removed in 4.9.75-30 which I just
>     upgraded
>     this system to: http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=21122
>     <http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=21122>
>     Previously I was on 4.9.63-29 which does not have this problem, and
does
>     have the ldisc patch. So I guess the question is for Johnny, why was it
>     removed?
> 
>     In the meantime, I'll revert the kernel and follow up if I see any
>     further
>     problems.
> 
> 
> IIRC the patch has been removed from the spec file because it has been
> merged upstream in 4.9.71.
The IRC discussion I found in my log indicates that it was removed
because it didn't apply cleanly due to changes when updating to 4.9.75,
yet I don't think anyone independently validated that the changes made
are equivalent to the patch that was removed.  I was never able to
reproduce this issue, so I didn't investigate it myself.

-- 
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast | Managed Infrastructure, Datacenter and Cloud Services
800 S Wells, Suite 190 | Chicago, IL 60607
312.602.2689 X203 | Fax: 312.602.2688
kevin at steadfast.net | www.steadfast.net

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:20:39PM -0600, Kevin Stange
wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 05:57 PM, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Nathan March <nathan at gt.net
> > <mailto:nathan at gt.net>> wrote:
> > 
> >     Hi,
> > 
> >     > Hmm.. isn't this the ldisc bug that was discussed a few
months ago on this
> >     list,
> >     > and a patch was applied to virt-sig kernel aswell?
> >     >
> >     > Call trace looks similar..
> > 
> >     Good memory! I'd forgotten about that despite being the one
who ran
> >     into it.
> > 
> >     Looks like that patch was just removed in 4.9.75-30 which I just
> >     upgraded
> >     this system to: http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=21122
> >     <http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=21122>
> >     Previously I was on 4.9.63-29 which does not have this problem,
and does
> >     have the ldisc patch. So I guess the question is for Johnny, why
was it
> >     removed?
> > 
> >     In the meantime, I'll revert the kernel and follow up if I see
any
> >     further
> >     problems.
> > 
> > 
> > IIRC the patch has been removed from the spec file because it has been
> > merged upstream in 4.9.71.
> 
> The IRC discussion I found in my log indicates that it was removed
> because it didn't apply cleanly due to changes when updating to 4.9.75,
> yet I don't think anyone independently validated that the changes made
> are equivalent to the patch that was removed.  I was never able to
> reproduce this issue, so I didn't investigate it myself.
>
Sounds like the patch is still needed :)

Anyone up to re-porting it to 4.9.75+ ?


-- Pasi
 
> -- 
> Kevin Stange
> Chief Technology Officer
> Steadfast | Managed Infrastructure, Datacenter and Cloud Services
> 800 S Wells, Suite 190 | Chicago, IL 60607
> 312.602.2689 X203 | Fax: 312.602.2688
> kevin at steadfast.net | www.steadfast.net