linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/170] 4.19.14-stable review

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:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 10:09:51 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/170] 4.19.14-stable review

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 06:56:40PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:25:03AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.14 release.
> > > There are 170 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > > 
> > > Responses should be made by Wed Jan  9 10:43:54 UTC 2019.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > 
> > 
> > Still (for v4.19.13-171-gc68ce175c3b8):
> > 
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_64.c: In function ‘sys_rt_sigreturn’:
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_64.c:761:21: error: ‘msr’ undeclared 
> > 
> > AFAICS commit 5c784c8414fba ("powerpc/tm: Remove msr_tm_active()") is missing.
> 
> Breno on this thread just said that this patch should not be applied,
> and another one will be submitted upstream instead to solve the problem
> correctly and then we can backport it.
> 
> So we can live with this build issue for now.
> 

I think you should drop the offending patch in this case. It doesn't make
sense to keep it - all it accomplishes is to break various builds. What is
the point of doing that ? Is that somehow better than living with the bug
it is supposed to fix ?

Guenter