linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3b 0/9] refactoring for mask

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1303262153220.22263@ionos>
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:54:59 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc:	Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@...mile.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Simon Guinot <sguinot@...ie.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3b 0/9] refactoring for mask_cache

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Greg KH wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:37:53PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:12:02PM +0100, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> > > > This patchset addresses a regression found with the Orion GPIO controller
> > > > when both Edge- and Level- based interrupts are requested within the same
> > > > GPIO chip. The regression was introduced by e59347a
> > > > "arm: orion: Use generic irq chip"
> > > > 
> > > > thereby affecting all kernel releases since 3.0.x.
> > > 
> > > <formletter>
> > > 
> > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
> > > stable kernel tree.  Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
> > > for how to do this properly.
> > > 
> > > </formletter>
> > 
> > Aside of that it would be less intrusive for the stable series to
> > revert the offending commit(s), if that is possible.
> 
> If it is reverted in Linus's tree, yes, I can do that.  But if so,
> please just tag that revert with the Cc: stable marking and then I can
> pick it up properly.
> 
> Otherwise, no, I can't revert something that isn't already fixed in
> upstream first.

I know. The proper thing would be:

patch 1/n   revert (cc'ed to stable)
patch 2-m/n fix infrastructure
patch n/n   redo the commit with the proper change

Though I don't know if it's possible.

Thanks,

	tglx
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/