linux-kernel - Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928

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, 7 May 2018 21:30:43 +0200
From:   Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression caused by commit 882164a4a928

On Mon, 07 May 2018 22:03:58 +0300
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:

> Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 7 May 2018 10:44:34 -0500
> > Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net> wrote:
> >  
> >> Although commit 882164a4a928 ("ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in 
> >> module") appeared to be harmless, it leads to complete failure of drivers b43.   
> >  
> >>   config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE
> >>          bool
> >> -       depends on SSB_PCIHOST && SSB = y
> >> +       depends on SSB_PCIHOST && (SSB = y || !MIPS)
> >>          default y
> >> 
> >>   config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE  
> >
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10161131/
> >
> > Could we _please_ switch to not applying patches to ssb or b43, if
> > nobody acked (or better reviewed) a patch?
> >
> > We had multiple changes to ssb and b43 in the recent past that did not
> > have a review at all and broke something. I don't think such software
> > quality is acceptable at all.
> > So please revert 882164a4a928.  
> 
> Yes, someone please send a revert so that this can be fixed quickly for
> v4.17.

Uhm, can you just type git revert 882164a4a928? :)
Or do I have to send you a pull request?

> > I'm sorry that this patch slipped through the cracks of my inbox.
> > But the reaction to that shall not be to just apply the patch. It
> > shall be to resubmit it for review.  
> 
> The thing is that in general I do not have time to ping people for every
> patch, I get enough of emails as is. If there are no review comments I
> have to assume the patch is ok to apply.

Yes, I understand that pinging people can be annoying and time
consuming. But we have tools like patchwork. Why isn't pinging
(semi)automated? Patchwork should really track the review status of a
patch.
I think the concept of no-comments = everything-ok is
fundamentally broken. But it has always been that way for wireless and
lots of other subsystems.

> But as ssb has had two major regressions recently I'm going to
> significantly raise the bar for ssb patches, and will refuse to apply
> random patches if they have not been tested with b43/b44.

Thanks.

-- 
Michael

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped