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: <33879b14-5114-d994-335c-b2e7e8d8dd4d@phrozen.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:24:43 +0200
From:   John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.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 03/10/2016 15:31, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 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
> 

Sure, is there a patchwork where i can export it with all the Acks ?

	John