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:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:00:01 +0100
From:   Matthias Schiffer <mschiffer@...verse-factory.net>
To:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness
 setting when setting delay_off=0

On 02/06/2018 09:44 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 03:02 AM, 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?
>>
>>>> This is a backport of a patch that is already upstream.  If it doesn't
>>>> belong in a stable tree, great, let us know that, saying why it is so.
>>>
>>> See jacek.anaszewski@...il.com 's explanation.
>>
>> I might be missing something, but Jacek suggested I pull another patch
>> before this one?
> 
> Just to clarify:
> 
> For 4.14 below patches are chosen correctly:
> 
> [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when
> setting delay_off=0
> [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 094/110] leds: core: Fix regression caused by
> commit 2b83ff96f51d
> 
> For 4.9 both above patches are needed preceded by:
> 
> eb1610b4c273 ("led: core: Fix blink_brightness setting race")
> 
> The issue the patch [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] fixes was
> introduced in 4.7, and thus it should be removed from the series
> for 3.18 and 4.4.
> 

It seems only "led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay_off=0"
was applied to 4.9. Could we get the regression fixes backported to 4.9 as
well?

Thanks,
Matthias



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)