Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/277] 6.12.54-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 11:36:20AM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 20:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.54 release.
> > There are 277 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 Sun, 19 Oct 2025 14:50:59 +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/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.12.54-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-6.12.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> The following kernel crash noticed on the stable-rc 6.12.54-rc1 while running
> LTP syscalls listmount04 test case.
> 
> This is a known regression on the Linux next and reported [1] and fixed [2].
> 
> This was caused by,
> listmount: don't call path_put() under namespace semaphore
> commit c1f86d0ac322c7e77f6f8dbd216c65d39358ffc0 upstream.
> 
> And there is a follow up patch to fix this.
> 
> mount: handle NULL values in mnt_ns_release()
> [ Upstream commit 6c7ca6a02f8f9549a438a08a23c6327580ecf3d6 ]
> 
> When calling in listmount() mnt_ns_release() may be passed a NULL
> pointer. Handle that case gracefully.
> 
> Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> 
> First seen on 6.12.54-rc1
> Good: v6.12.53
> Bad: 6.12.54-rc1
> 
> Regression Analysis:
> - New regression? yes
> - Reproducibility? yes
> 
> Test regression: 6.12.54-rc1 Internal error: Oops: mnt_ns_release
> __arm64_sys_listmount (fs/namespace.c:5526)
> 
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>

Thanks, I've queued that up now, it required some manual work which is
why it didn't make it originally to 6.12.y

thanks,

greg k-h