linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when setting delay

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: <713113d8-7662-d80c-c62f-af020469d0bf@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:44:58 +0100
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@...rot.com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness
 setting when setting delay_off=0

On 02/06/2018 03:02 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> *** if brightness=0, led off
>>>>>>> *** else apply brightness if next timer <--- timer is stop, and will never apply new setting
>>>>>>> ** otherwise set led_set_brightness_nosleep
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To fix that, when we delete the timer, we should clear LED_BLINK_SW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feeling
>>>>>> that the problem described might not be present there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else does?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you submitting patches you have no way to test?
>>>
>>> What?  This is stable tree backporting, why are you trying to make a
>>> requirement for something that we have never had before?
>>
>> I don't think random patches should be sent to stable just because
>> they appeared in mainline. Plus, I don't think I'm making new rules:
>>
>> submit-checklist.rst:
>>
>> 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP``
>> and
>>    ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``
>>
>> stable-kernel-rules.rst:
>>
>> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not,
>> into the "-stable" tree:
>>
>> - It must be obviously correct and tested.
>> - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
>>   problem..." type thing).
> 
> So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug?
> 
>>> This is a backport of a patch that is already upstream.  If it doesn't
>>> belong in a stable tree, great, let us know that, saying why it is so.
>>
>> See jacek.anaszewski@...il.com 's explanation.
> 
> I might be missing something, but Jacek suggested I pull another patch
> before this one?

Just to clarify:

For 4.14 below patches are chosen correctly:

[PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] led: core: Fix brightness setting when
setting delay_off=0
[PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 094/110] leds: core: Fix regression caused by
commit 2b83ff96f51d

For 4.9 both above patches are needed preceded by:

eb1610b4c273 ("led: core: Fix blink_brightness setting race")

The issue the patch [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 065/110] fixes was
introduced in 4.7, and thus it should be removed from the series
for 3.18 and 4.4.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski