Hi Salvatore
CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account! Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:05:41AM +0800, Kang Wenlin wrote:On 3/20/2025 21:38, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account! Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Control: severity -1 normal Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 07:04:14PM +0800, Wenlin Kang wrote:Package: linux Version: 6.1.129-1 Severity: critical The selftest tpidr2 fails with a segfault(Segmentation fault) when i run it. root@localhost:~# uname -rvm 6.1.0-32-arm64 #1 SMP Debian 6.1.129-1 (2025-03-06) aarch64 root@localhost:~# root@localhost:~# cd linux-kenel/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi && make root@localhost:~/linux-kernel/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi# ./tpidr2 Segmentation fault I've backported the fix patches from upstream for debian-linux(branch: debian/6.1/bookworm) and attached it, it works as: root@localhost:~/linux-kernel/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/abi# ./tpidr2 TAP version 13 1..5 ok 0 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported ok 1 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported ok 2 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported ok 3 skipped, TPIDR2 not supported ok 4 skipped, TPIDR2 not supportedI'm sorry but we are not going to apply such a patch series. Make sure they get backported upstream to the 6.1.y branch and let us know again when this has happened. Note that the upstream commit of the first patch is as well not correct, it would be dc64cc12bcd14219afb91b55d23192c3eb45aa43 ? Was this a typo?Thank you for the clarification. I understand the requirement to backport to the upstream 6.1.y branch. In addition, my apologies for the incorrect commit ID on the first patch, thank you for correcting me. I will backport the patches with the correct commit and inform you when it is complete.No problem about the wrong commit id, was just something I spotted while checking what commits we are speaking about and did it not found in upstream. Make sure that it is asked to be backported to each "upper" stable version as well where commits are missing, otherwise upstream will likely reject your backport request. So if there are commits missing in 6.6.y for instance, they need to flow in there as well.
Thanks for the reminder. I’ve already sent the patches with the
correct
commit IDs to the upstream 6.1.y and 6.6.y. However, the
maintainer
considered the patch series to be a new feature rather than a
regression
fix, as it’s not a real-world issue reported by users(it was found
during internal testing)—so it was dropped.
https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250402082656.4177277-1-wenlin.kang@windriver.com/T/#t
Regards, Salvatore
-- -- Thanks Wenlin Kang