linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/fttmr010: fix invalid interrupt register access

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:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:46:00 +0000
From:   Tao Ren <taoren@...com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Yu Lei <mine260309@...il.com>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/fttmr010: fix invalid interrupt
 register access

On 10/2/18, 11:57 PM, "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:

> My thought is go for (2) and do all changes in one patch :)

No problem, Linus.
One more question: looks like my first patch 4451d3f59f2a (fix set_next_event handler) is not merged back to "timers/core". Should I generate this patch on top of the first patch or on top of the current "timers/core"? Which one would be easier for you (or Daniel/Thomas)? Sorry I'm pretty new to the community..

Thanks,
Tao Ren