linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:25:48 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@...il.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
	Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive
 spinlocks



On 09/05/2012 05:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:14:48PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:04:07PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> The following patch has been included in linux-next
>>> (fe89def79c48e2149abdd1e816523e69a9067191) but has not yet landed in mainline
>>> nor been queued for stable so far as I can determine. This patch addresses a
>>> deadlock in mainline and is a prerequisite for an additional fix required by the
>>> PREEMPT_RT kernel. Can we get this pulled into 3.4.11 please?
>>
>> 3.4.11?  It has to hit Linus's tree first.
>>
>>> Perhaps I am
>>> jumping the gun, but this patch was originally pulled on June 19, 2012.
>>
>> Remember, we missed a pull cycle for tty due to other problems, I
>> thought I picked all of the different pieces needed for 3.6, but I must
>> of missed this one.
> 
> Nope, it made it, it is commit 2588aba002d14e938c2f56d299ecf3e7ce1302a5.

Doh, I pulled master and stable, but only checked stable. Sigh. My
apologies Greg.

> 
> Now, do you want that patch in the -stable releases?  If so, how far
> back? :)

Yes, back to 3.0 would be ideal. It needs mangling for 3.2 and back
though. I will send patches for 3.4, 3.2 and possibly 3.0 following the
stable_kernel_rules.txt procedure.

> 
> Sorry for the mess,

Looks like it was my mess today :-)

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/