linux-kernel - Re: [4/4] mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:59:18 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [4/4] mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:14:05PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:08:35PM +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Failed to apply:
> >> 
> >> fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless
> >> (drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c).
> >> error: could not build fake ancestor
> >> Applying: mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code
> >> Patch failed at 0001 mwifiex: pcie: de-duplicate buffer allocation code
> >> The copy of the patch that failed is found in: .git/rebase-apply/patch
> >> 
> >> Patch set to Changes Requested.
> >
> > This applies fine to your wireless-drivers/master branch for me, where
> > patches 1-3 were applied. Are you applying this to
> > wireless-drivers-next? It's quite understandable that patch 4 wouldn't
> > apply there, as you've stripped out the previous patches...
> 
> I (wrongly) understood that patches 1-3 are for 4.11 and patch 4 is for
> 4.12, don't remember anymore how I got that impression. But I don't

Well, you're not exactly wrong. I mentioned in the cover letter that the
first 3 are bugfixes (probably for 4.11) and the 4th is not.

> think a cleanup patch like this is justified for 4.11 so I'm not
> comfortable applying this to wireless-drivers (which should only contain
> fixes to important bugs or regressions).

Right.

> What I could do is to wait for the patches 1-3 trickle down to w-d-next
> and then apply this patch. It usually takes few weeks, but with bad luck
> it might happen only after the merge window. Would that work?

Yeah, I figured something like that would happen. Seems fine to me.

Brian