linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 43/50] regulator: core: Don't use regulators as supplies until the parent is bound

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:00:11 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 43/50] regulator: core: Don't use
 regulators as supplies until the parent is bound

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 06:19:46PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:06:36AM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:

> >In general I would be extremely wary of backporting anything like this
> >that affects things like device instantiation ordering, even without any
> >knock on bugs directly in the code there's a good chance that someone
> >building on stable is going to have some kind of dependency on the
> >particular behaviour of the kernel version they're using and changes
> >like this could cause updating to the latest stable to introduce
> >problems which then discourages people from picking up stable.

> On the other hand, we do want to be "bug compatible" with upstream,
> if we force a stable release to behave in a broken way it'll be hard
> later to move to a newer stable release.

> I think that we'd rather pull in fixes than avoid breaking broken
> behaviors.

We're talking about existing stable releases that people are already
using here, if it was .1 or whatever then sure but at .59 it's a bit
late to be doing anything that risky.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)