Patch needs to be removed ("debian/patches/gcc-ibmz-plt-revert.diff: Revert PLT changes from the gcc-11 branch")

This bug was fixed in the package gcc-11 - 11.3.0-11ubuntu1

---------------
gcc-11 (11.3.0-11ubuntu1) lunar; urgency=medium

  * Remove the gcc-ibmz-plt-revert patch. LP: #2002429.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-11) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Update to git 20230110 from the gcc-11 branch.
    - Fix PR target/106736 (PPC), PR fortran/108131.
  * Fix FTBFS on hurd-i386 (Svante Signell). Closes: #1027840.
  * Bump standards version.

 -- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:09:02 +0100

gcc-11 jammy SRU is required for livepatches in the linux-generic kernel from next kernel SRU cycle.

A forked gcc-11 will be used to build kernels, to enable building livepatches. I will upload SRU with just this change alone into -proposed as well. Originally it was expected that gcc-11 point release SRU would be done for jammy by now.

gcc-11, -cross, -cross-ports debdiffs for this SRU attached above.

Packages are built, against -security pocket, in ubuntu-toolchain-r PPA, just like the previous round of SRUs.

https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages?
field.name_filter=gcc-11&field.status_filter=published&field.series_filter=

Binary copies requested from that PPA into jammy-proposed.

Please review and accept the syncs https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=gcc-11

Note in Lunar default compilers are gcc-12 based, and have this issue fixed in native and cross compilers.

Hello John, or anyone else affected,

Accepted gcc-11 into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-11/11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed-jammy to verification-done-jammy. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed-jammy. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping!

N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days.

Hello John, or anyone else affected,

Accepted gcc-11-cross into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-11-cross/11ubuntu1.2 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed-jammy to verification-done-jammy. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed-jammy. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping!

N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days.

Hello John, or anyone else affected,

Accepted gcc-11-cross-ports into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-11-cross-ports/8ubuntu1.2 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed-jammy to verification-done-jammy. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed-jammy. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping!

N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days.

Tested with Ubuntu 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1:

[ Test Case ]
* Successfully Livepatched fs/proc/meminfo.c using kpatch v0.9.7, running 5.15.0-72-generic on s390x architecture
* Additionally tested same Livepatch with Ubuntu 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04, which failed as expected

It looks like this is ready to go for Jammy and is already fixed in Lunar, but what's the Kinetic status? From what I can tell this applies to kinetic but there are no uploads to kinetic-proposed. Are you intending to deliberately leave this unfixed in kinetic?

On Wed, 17 May 2023, 07:45 Chris Halse Rogers, <email address hidden>
wrote:

> It looks like this is ready to go for Jammy and is already fixed in
> Lunar, but what's the Kinetic status? From what I can tell this applies
> to kinetic but there are no uploads to kinetic-proposed. Are you
> intending to deliberately leave this unfixed in kinetic?
>

`gcc` has always been fixed in kinetic.

The default GCC is what matters here. It is gcc-11 in jammy based off
whatever devel packaging has.

In kinetic this is already fixed in the default GCC, which is gcc-12 as
used to build the kernel.

We do not support building kernels with arbitrary toolchains, thus there is
no support requirement to keep gcc-11 (non default) updated in kinetic,
even as we update gcc-11 (default) in jammy & devel.

But this is not just patching the compiler used to build the kernel, it's patching the compiler available to everyone in the gcc-11 package? I may not have the full context to the fix, but this looks like it doesn't *just* change codegen for the kernel, right?

It's fine for kinetic to be deprioritised - gcc-11 is in universe rather than main there so we've already communicated a lower support level, and kinetic is already superseded - but I think we've decided that while it's OK to skip intermediate releases we want that to be an actively documented choice rather than just silently failing to fix.

On Thu, 18 May 2023, 01:25 Chris Halse Rogers, <email address hidden>
wrote:

> But this is not just patching the compiler used to build the kernel,
> it's patching the compiler available to everyone in the gcc-11 package?
> I may not have the full context to the fix, but this looks like it
> doesn't *just* change codegen for the kernel, right?
>
> It's fine for kinetic to be deprioritised - gcc-11 is in universe rather
> than main there so we've already communicated a lower support level, and
> kinetic is already superseded - but I think we've decided that while
> it's OK to skip intermediate releases we want that to be an actively
> documented choice rather than just silently failing to fix.
>

This is an active choice.
No packages in kinetic+ use gcc-11.
gcc-11 in kinetic+ exists to apply and test fixes for SRUs to jammy where
it is the default compiler; as well as to compile EFI code that is copied
back (grub2-unsigned).

Furthermore this fix insofar affects kernel compiled kernel, thus yes this
is fixing kernel compiler codepath in jammy only, as kinetic+ is fixed
(specifically kinetic+ kernels require gcc-12 due to kconfig hardening
choices).

> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to Ubuntu.
> Matching subscriptions: s390x
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002429
>
> Title:
> Patch needs to be removed ("debian/patches/gcc-ibmz-plt-revert.diff:
> Revert PLT changes from the gcc-11 branch")
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/2002429/+subscriptions
>
> Launchpad-Notification-Type: bug
> Launchpad-Bug: product=ubuntu-z-systems; status=New; importance=Undecided;
> assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; sourcepackage=gcc-11; component=main;
> status=Fix Released; importance=Wishlist; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; sourcepackage=gcc-11-cross;
> component=universe; status=New; importance=Undecided; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; sourcepackage=gcc-11-cross-ports;
> component=universe; status=New; importance=Undecided; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; distroseries=jammy;
> sourcepackage=gcc-11; component=main; status=Fix Committed;
> importance=Critical; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; distroseries=jammy;
> sourcepackage=gcc-11-cross; component=main; status=Fix Committed;
> importance=Undecided; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; distroseries=jammy;
> sourcepackage=gcc-11-cross-ports; component=universe; status=Fix Committed;
> importance=Undecided; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; distroseries=kinetic;
> sourcepackage=gcc-11; component=main; status=New; importance=Low;
> assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; distroseries=lunar;
> sourcepackage=gcc-11; component=main; status=Fix Released;
> importance=Wishlist; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug: distribution=debian; sourcepackage=gcc-11; component=main;
> status=Fix Released; importance=Unknown; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug-Tags: s390x verification-done-jammy verification-needed
> Launchpad-Bug-Information-Type: Public
> Launchpad-Bug-Priv...

Hm, maybe I've been unclear.

What I mean is: while the launchpad buildds don't use gcc-11 for anything in kinetic onwards, launchpad buildds aren't the only users of a compiler and the Ubuntu kernel is not the only thing that users of a compiler might compile.

gcc-11 is a package available in the archive, and users can use it¹, regardless of the particular rationale that *we* have for including it in the archive. If a jammy user is deliberately using gcc-11 I would expect that upgrading to kinetic would not regress any fixes we've made to the jammy package.

I don't *think* we have a policy that non-default compilers are not subject to the usual SRU policy? If we do, maybe that should be better communicated :)

Again, I'm OK with deciding to tell users of gcc-11 that to get this fix they need to either stay on Jammy or upgrade all the way to Lunar. I just want to make sure that we've actively decided to tell users this is unsupported, rather than just verifying that it doesn't affect *us*.

¹: Maybe they're working around a gcc-12 miscompilation, or don't want to revalidate gcc-12 just now, or just like the number 11.

On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 00:30, Chris Halse Rogers
<email address hidden> wrote:
>
> Hm, maybe I've been unclear.

You are trying to apply mechanical reasoning without looking at the
fix in question.

The combination of users you are alluding to who may experience a
regression is zero, in this instance:
- userspace code is unaffected
- kinetic+ requires 5.19+ kernels,
- 5.19+ kinetic kernels can only be built with gcc-12 due to security
features that require newer toolchain
- the only affected combination of users is jammy building v5.15 kernel

Separately, we ensure no regressions of default versions of toolchains
between release upgrades, and we frequently do not ship neither
security or fixes to non-default toolchains.

>
> What I mean is: while the launchpad buildds don't use gcc-11 for
> anything in kinetic onwards, launchpad buildds aren't the only users of
> a compiler and the Ubuntu kernel is not the only thing that users of a
> compiler might compile.
>
> gcc-11 is a package available in the archive, and users can use it¹,
> regardless of the particular rationale that *we* have for including it
> in the archive. If a jammy user is deliberately using gcc-11 I would
> expect that upgrading to kinetic would not regress any fixes we've made
> to the jammy package.
>
> I don't *think* we have a policy that non-default compilers are not
> subject to the usual SRU policy? If we do, maybe that should be better
> communicated :)

Nature of the bug, and the fix, guaratee no regression to any users
upon dist-upgrade, even if they choose to use gcc-11 by force.

>
> Again, I'm OK with deciding to tell users of gcc-11 that to get this fix
> they need to either stay on Jammy or upgrade all the way to Lunar. I
> just want to make sure that we've actively decided to tell users this is
> unsupported, rather than just verifying that it doesn't affect *us*.
>
> ¹: Maybe they're working around a gcc-12 miscompilation, or don't want
> to revalidate gcc-12 just now, or just like the number 11.
>

SRU fixes can be released in LTS release without being prepared or
released yet in the interim releases, especially since they are fixed
in the devel release already or even non-applicable. We do this all
the time.

For example python3.8 is default in main in some releases, but not
others. The one that is in main gets security fixes in the Ubuntu
Archive, the one not in universe doesn't receive neither SRUs nor
security fixes, and only receives Pro updates.

Similar for all compilers we ever shipped.

Note, your reasoning is flawed, and doesn't stand the test of time.
Demanding a fix for kinetic is pointless, given it is old release
which is about to go eol, and the package in question is unused is not
affected, and the regression is not present in the default compiler.

Also explicitely at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Newer_Releases

> - userspace code is unaffected

Aha! This was not obvious to me from the bug. With that additional bit of context, there is indeed nothing to worry about.

> Also explicitely at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Newer_Releases

Hm. We *were* worried when we wrote that that it would be interpreted as "as soon as N+1 is released, you no longer need to fix (non-LTS) N" which was not our intent. The publicised policy is that non-LTS releases have a 9 month support lifespan; if *everyone* skips uploading fixes to a non-LTS release as soon it is superseded then that's just 6 months.

This bug was fixed in the package gcc-11 - 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1

---------------
gcc-11 (11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1) jammy; urgency=medium

  * Drop debian/patches/gcc-ibmz-plt-revert.diff, the kernel was fixed to
    build correct dkms modules on s390x. In turn, this patch is now
    preventing livepatch modules to work. LP: #2002429

 -- Dimitri John Ledkov <email address hidden> Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:17:55 +0000

This bug was fixed in the package gcc-11-cross - 11ubuntu1.2

---------------
gcc-11-cross (11ubuntu1.2) jammy; urgency=medium

  * SRU: LP: #2002429: Build using GCC 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1 for 22.04
    LTS.

 -- Dimitri John Ledkov <email address hidden> Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:56:27 +0100

This bug was fixed in the package gcc-11-cross-ports - 8ubuntu1.2

---------------
gcc-11-cross-ports (8ubuntu1.2) jammy; urgency=medium

  * SRU: LP: #2002429: Build using GCC 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1 for 22.04
    LTS.

 -- Dimitri John Ledkov <email address hidden> Wed, 29 Mar 2023 23:16:56 +0100

The verification of the Stable Release Update for gcc-11 has completed successfully and the package is now being released to -updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In the event that you encounter a regression using the package from -updates please report a new bug using ubuntu-bug and tag the bug report regression-update so we can easily find any regressions.

Hello John, or anyone else affected,

Accepted gcc-11 into kinetic-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-11/11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.10 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed-kinetic to verification-done-kinetic. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed-kinetic. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping!

N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days.

Hello John, or anyone else affected,

Accepted gcc-11 into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-11/11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed-jammy to verification-done-jammy. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed-jammy. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping!

N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days.

All autopkgtests for the newly accepted gcc-11 (11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) for jammy have finished running.
The following regressions have been reported in tests triggered by the package:

binutils/2.38-4ubuntu2.2 (amd64, s390x)

Please visit the excuses page listed below and investigate the failures, proceeding afterwards as per the StableReleaseUpdates policy regarding autopkgtest regressions [1].

https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/jammy/update_excuses.html#gcc-11

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Autopkgtest_Regressions

Thank you!

setting verification to done again, just triggered again with the changelog entries

This bug was fixed in the package gcc-11 - 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04

---------------
gcc-11 (11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) jammy-proposed; urgency=medium

  * SRU: LP: #2019465. Backport GCC 11.4 to 22.04 LTS.

gcc-11 (11.4.0-1ubuntu1) mantic; urgency=medium

  * GCC 11.4.0 release.

gcc-11 (11.4.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium

  * GCC 11.4.0 release.
  * Update newlib to 4.3.0.
  * Refresh patches.
  * Update libgphobos symbols file.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-15ubuntu1) mantic; urgency=medium

  * Merge with Debian; remaining changes:
    - Build from upstream sources.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-15) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Update to git 20230523 from the gcc-11 branch (11.4 release candidate).
    - Fix PR c++/98821, PR target/70243 (PPC), PR target/104871 (Darwin),
      PR target/105599 (Darwin), PR c++/108998, PR c++/100295, PR c++/107579,
      PR c++/107864, PR c++/107179, PR c++/100474, PR c++/104527,
      PR c++/92752, PR c++/101118, PR fortran/109846, PR libstdc++/107801,
      PR libstdc++/107801, PR libstdc++/91456, PR libstdc++/104875,
      PR libstdc++/108118, PR libstdc++/108265.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-14ubuntu1) mantic; urgency=medium

  * Merge with Debian; remaining changes:
    - Build from upstream sources.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-14) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Update to git 20230510 from the gcc-11 branch.
    - Fix PR tree-optimization/109778, PR tree-optimization/108950,
      PR tree-optimization/107898, PR tree-optimization/109473,
      PR c++/106740, PR c++/105852, PR libstdc++/105844,
      PR libstdc++/105844.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-13ubuntu1) mantic; urgency=medium

  * Merge with Debian; remaining changes:
    - Build from upstream sources.

gcc-11 (11.3.0-13) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Update to git 20230502 from the gcc-11 branch.
    - Fix PR target/108812 (PPC), PR target/108589 (AArch64),
      PR tree-optimization/105484, PR middle-end/104464, PR middle-end/104450,
      PR tree-optimization/109491, PR target/108699 (PPC),
      PR target/108807 (PPC), PR target/109067 (PPC), PR target/109140 (SPARC),
      PR middle-end/108546, PR target/104921 (AArch64), PR c++/107163,
      PR c++/105996, PR c++/108975, PR c++/69410, PR c++/101869, PR c++/105406,
      PR c++/103871, PR c++/98056, PR c++/108468, PR c++/106188, PR c++/106713,
      PR d/109108, PR d/108877, PR fortran/109511, PR fortran/99036,
      PR fortran/109186, PR fortran/85877, PR fortran/106945, PR fortran/104332,
      PR middle-end/108546, PR fortran/108937, PR fortran/96024,
      PR fortran/96025, PR middle-end/108546, PR libstdc++/109064,
      PR libstdc++/108952, PR libstdc++/108636, PR libstdc++/103934,
      PR libstdc++/108030, PR tree-optimization/109410, PR middle-end/106190,
      PR target/109276 (x86), PR ipa/105685, PR tree-optimization/109176,
      PR target/105554, PR middle-end/108685, PR testsuite/108973,
      PR debug/108967, PR middle-end/108854, PR target/108881 (x86),
      PR target/100758 (x86), PR tree-optimization/108688,
      PR tree-optimization/108692, PR middle-end/108435, PR debug/108573,
      PR rtl-optimization/108596, PR other/108560, PR tree-optimization/108498,
      PR bootstrap/90543, PR middle-end/108459, PR middle-end/108237,
      PR middl...

Updating entry "affects kinetic" to Won't Fix, since kinetic reached it's EOL on July the 20th:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2023-July/000293.html