linux-kernel - Re: Regression in inv

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: <0fd48340-63b7-253e-352c-4f98cf6e19b2@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 4 May 2016 08:49:06 +0100
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:	Crestez Dan Leonard <cdleonard@...il.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Michael Welling <mwelling@...e.org>, mranostay@...il.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.baluta@...el.com,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5

On 03/05/16 19:54, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> On 05/01/2016 10:58 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
>>> Michael Welling <mwelling@...e.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA Baytrail/T
>>>>> platforms
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>>>>
>>>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>>>>
>>>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
>>>
>>> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes into the
>>> next -rc ?
>>>
>> I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the regression and
>> which one fixed it?  The only patches I can immediately see in next
>> both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
>> has hit Linus' tree yet.
>>
>> Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
>> c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
>> I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
>>
>> Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will only get
>> in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which fixes
>> we actually need to backport.
>>
> Commit
>     c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
> Fixes:
>     33da559f: iio: imu: mpu6050: add mpu6500 register settings
> 
> As far as I can tell this crash will always happen when the device is
> probed via ACPI.

Hi Greg,

A quick heads up.

Unfortunately this regression has come up whilst I'm travelling and
don't have appropriate signing keys with me to do a pull request.
Should be able to do one tomorrow evening as I'll back home.

Turns out the 'possible' is quite common and causing a mess.
Even better the fix actually has a fix as well... 

Fastest option is probably a cherry pick of:

c816d9e7: iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
718ba46e: iio: imu: mpu6050: Fix name/chip_id when using ACPI

I'll send you a pull request of my 
togreg-in-a-hurry branch tomorrow.

Sorry for these being so late in the cycle.

Anyhow, run for train time. 

Thanks

Jonathan