linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 19/60] Bluetooth: avoid silent hci

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: <20171213133716.hfdujad4so652ll2@sasha-lappy>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:37:26 +0000
From:   alexander.levin@...izon.com
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 19/60] Bluetooth: avoid silent hci_bcm
 ACPI PM regression

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 09:14:29AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:55:14AM +0000, alexander.levin@...izon.com wrote:
>> From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 4294625e029028854596865be401b9c5c1f906ef ]
>>
>> The hci_bcm platform-device hack which was used to implement
>> power management for ACPI devices is being replaced by a
>> serial-device-bus implementation.
>>
>> Unfortunately, when the corresponding change to the ACPI code lands (a
>> change that will stop enumerating and registering the serial-device-node
>> child as a platform device) PM will break silently unless serdev
>> TTY-port controller support has been enabled. Specifically, hciattach
>> (btattach) would still succeed, but power management would no longer
>> work.
>
>This one is not needed in stable, which does not have the above
>mentioned ACPI change [ e361d1f85855 ("ACPI / scan: Fix enumeration for
>special UART devices") ].
>
>The Fixes and stable-CC tags were left out on purpose.

Thanks Johan, I'll remove it.

The Fixes tag should probably be there, as on it's own it does not
indicate a patch should go into stable, and we have tools to prevent
us from applying commits that "Fixes:" something which is not in the
tree.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha