linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/bcm2836: Prevent spurious interrupts

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610311213460.10522@nanos>
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:16:12 -0600 (MDT)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
cc:     linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/bcm2836: Prevent spurious interrupts

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> >> > This is missing a fixes tag. I have no idea when that problem was
> >> > introduced, so I have no way to decide whether this needs to be tagged
> >> > stable or not.
> >> 
> >> This code has been there since introduction of the driver, so:
> >> 
> >> Fixes: 1a15aaa998dc ("irqchip: Add bcm2836 interrupt controller for Raspberry Pi 2")
> >
> > So it want's a stable tag, right?
> 
> I'm not the author here, and I was just trying to provide an assist with
> upstreaming, so I'm not going to get too involved.  I'd say this is an
> edge case for being a stable tree candidate (it's produces a scary dmesg
> warning but no other functional problems that I know of), and I didn't
> add a fixes tag myself because of that.

A fixes tag is not the same as a stable tag, I really want to see Fixes
tags on patches which are bug fixes as it makes it simple to see the
context in which a bug was introduced.

vs. the stable tag: scary warnings tend to confuse users and cause people
to send bug reports. So in this case I'd add one.

Thanks,

	tglx