linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay

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:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:51:04 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@...rot.com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness
 setting when setting delay_off=0

On Tue 2018-02-06 02:02:19, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >> > > >> *** if brightness=0, led off
> >> > > >> *** else apply brightness if next timer <--- timer is stop, and will never apply new setting
> >> > > >> ** otherwise set led_set_brightness_nosleep
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> To fix that, when we delete the timer, we should clear LED_BLINK_SW.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feeling
> >> > > >that the problem described might not be present there.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else does?
> >> >
> >> > Why are you submitting patches you have no way to test?
> >>
> >> What?  This is stable tree backporting, why are you trying to make a
> >> requirement for something that we have never had before?
> >
> >I don't think random patches should be sent to stable just because
> >they appeared in mainline. Plus, I don't think I'm making new rules:
> >
> >submit-checklist.rst:
> >
> >13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP``
> >and
> >    ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``
> >
> >stable-kernel-rules.rst:
> >
> >Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not,
> >into the "-stable" tree:
> >
> > - It must be obviously correct and tested.
> > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
> >   problem..." type thing).
> 
> So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug?

I'm saying that this does not qualitfy as severe enough
bug. stable-kernel-rules.rst describes what bugs are severe enough,
and this is not one of them.

Best regards,
									Pavel	
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)