linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - fix: scheduling while atomic

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: <573D70D5.7070401@gmx.at>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2016 09:52:53 +0200
From:	Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@....at>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@...zinger.com>,
	Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>,
	Olivier Sobrie <olivier@...rie.be>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - fix: scheduling while atomic

On 2016-05-18 18:06, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:16:49PM +0200, Manfred Schlaegl wrote:
>> Pwm config may sleep so defer it using a worker.
>>
>> Trigger:
>> On a Freescale i.MX53 based board we ran into "BUG: scheduling while
>> atomic" because input_inject_event locks interrupts, but
>> imx_pwm_config_v2 sleeps.
>>
>> Tested on Freescale i.MX53 SoC with 4.6.0 and 4.1.24.
>>
>> Unmodified applicable to
>>  * 4.6    (stable)
>>  * 4.5.4  (stable)
>>  * 4.4.10 (longterm)
>>  * 4.1.24 (longterm)
>>
>> Modified applicable to
>>  * 3.18.33 (longterm)
> 
> What does this all mean?  Have you read
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to mark things for stable
> inclusion?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Sorry, I'm afraid I missed that. Thanks for the clarification. I will respect that in the future.

Should I resend the patch with a cleaned up message (without "Unmodified applicable to" and "Modified applicable to" stuff)?
Is the rest of message (formally) ok?

thanks,
manfred