linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: do not leave semaphore armed when copying properties fails

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:   Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:38:28 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: do not leave semaphore armed when copying
 properties fails

Hi Wolfram,

> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:41:01AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > We should not leave i2c_register_board_info() early, without unlocking the
> > __i2c_board_lock.
> > 
> > Fixes: b0c1e95ab44f ("i2c: copy device properties when using ...")
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> 
> So, it seems that patches 1+2 are related. Because I'd like to have
> patch 2 sitting in for-next for a whole cycle for sure, my plan is to
> revert the faulty b0c1e95ab44f from for-current and apply the fixed
> version (b0c1e95ab44f + this patch squashed) to for-next as well.
> 
> Is that okay with you?

I am perfectly fine with reverting b0c1e95ab44f from for-current,
however I wonder if we could have an immutable branch off 4.11-rc2 (or
-rc1) containing fixed version of patch copying property + patch adding
resources + patch exporting i2c_client_type (I will CC you on that
shortly), which we could share between your tree and mine so I can get
in changes to a few drivers on my side (eeti_ts, atmel, etc).

If you are OK with this I can prepare said branch.

Thanks!

-- 
Dmitry