linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] parisc fixes for kernel v4.19

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: <dbfa0162-8ed1-b16e-a418-da3b92c76230@gmx.de>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:47:30 +0200
From:   Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] parisc fixes for kernel v4.19

On 03.10.2018 00:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On 02.10.2018 23:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:02:13PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>>>> please pull a last set of fixes for the parisc architecture for kernel 4.19 from:
>>>>
>>>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux.git parisc-4.19-3
>>>>
>>>> The major change is for parisc64 to use a 64-bit suseconds_t type to
>>>> match what glibc expects for 64-bit userspace. It's an ABI change, but
>>>> since we don't have a 64-bit userspace on parisc yet, it won't introduce
>>>> a breakage.
>>>
>>> Isn't it a bit "late" in the release cycle for such a change?  Why not
>>> do this on the -rc1 release?
>>
>> I've tagged it for stable release.
>> So, it can go in now, or just wait until -rc1 and go in later.
> 
> Why is a major API change a viable stable change?

Of course it's not.
Esp. not if an API has been used already.
IMHO, this case is really different though... 

> What bugfix does it provide?

It fixes that code in stable kernels which would return wrong
time values *if* someone would create a libc for 64-bit parisc
and would run it with those "stable" kernels.
Fixing it now has no side-effects, the change is a trivial
2-line-removal patch, would bring the code in sync with
newer kernel source code, and it really fixes existing code. 

I still believe that this justifies for a backport.

Nevertheless, if you really disagree, I'm fine dropping the 
backport to stable and will only push it in the next
merge window for v4.20.
 
>>>> Other than that we simply drop unused code and outdated gcc version
>>>> checks.
>>>
>>> Why are those needed now?
>>
>> The patch in there which is by me changes one line simply cleans up a patch which
>> went in during the 4.19 merge cycle. So it would be nice to have it
>> added now before v4.19 gets released.
>> The other two patches are trivial and just remove dead code.
>> I rate them all as non-critical, but nice-to-have-in-v4.19. 
>>
>> If you disagree I'm absolutely fine to wait with all of them 
>> for the next merge window.
> 
> Normally I only let "bugfixes" into my trees at this point in time.
> cleanups always wait for the next -rc1 merge window as that's what it is
> there for.  So I'd recommend waiting as well.

Ok.

Helge