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

[Nathan March]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CentOS-virt [mailto:centos-virt-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of
> Johnny Hughes
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 6:39 AM
> To: centos-virt at centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] Xen 4.6.6-9 (with XPTI meltdown mitigation)
> packages making their way to centos-virt-xen-testing
> 
> On 01/24/2018 01:01 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > 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+ ?
> 
> It looked, at first glance, like 4.9.71 fixed it .. I guess not in all cases

I'm happy to do testing here if anyone's able to help with a patch, does look like reverting to 4.9.63-29 solved it for me in the interm.