linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: fix masking of pinmux functions

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: <CACRpkdZgZiuLnbVK9bS9myYD7R4WirXo20XwmSMQtLPvDpN9SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:31:29 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: fix masking of pinmux functions

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Sun 25 Sep 23:36 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:36 AM, John Crispin <john@...ozen.org> wrote:
>> > The following commit introduced a regression by not properly masking the
>> > calculated value.
>> >
>> > commit 47a01ee9a6c39fe1 ("pinctrl: qcom: Clear all function selection bits")
>
> Please use the format: Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
>
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
>>
>> Now I'm confused how it ever worked.... but agreed, the code looks wrong.
>
> I agree, we should have seen some issues based on this, I presume we
> where "lucky".
>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
>
> @Linus, the corrected patch appeared in v4.8-rc1, would you mind
> including this in a pull for v4.8?

I would have, had I been more attentive. And you even told me in person to
look at this :/ sorry.

Now I have the problem that I don't have the original patch in my inbox
at all: it might have been sent to some qcom-specific mailing list?

John: can you include the ACKs and resend with me on the To: line?

Yours,
Linus Walleij