[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303302875.3464.96.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:34:35 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>,
Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, stable-review@...nel.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [24/28] USB: xhci - fix unsafe macro
definitions
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 07:39 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:02:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
> > >
> > > commit 5a6c2f3ff039154872ce597952f8b8900ea0d732 upstream.
> > >
> > > Macro arguments used in expressions need to be enclosed in parenthesis
> > > to avoid unpleasant surprises.
> >
> > Do you know of any specific uses of these macros where the missing
> > parentheses caused 'unpleasant surprises'?
>
> In my opinion, this type of fix should be backported even if the current
> code does not appear to be at risk, otherwise a later fix in the kernel
> could cause a serious regression when backported to -stable. For instance,
> if we later have to backport this patch (cut'n'pasted) :
[...]
I agree, but would like to know whether there is an immediate effect.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists