linux-kernel - Re: Clang patches for 4.9

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190225173508.GA7885@archlinux-ryzen>
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:35:08 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Clang patches for 4.9

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:47:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:13:01PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > Hi Greg and Sasha,
> > > 
> > > Attached are three mbox files containing patches that bring the Clang
> > > backports that Nick did in 4.9.139 up to date with what is currently in
> > > 4.14 and mainline, as well as fix warnings that are present in the arm64
> > > and x86_64 defconfigs here and in AOSP (cuttlefish_defconfig). All of
> > > these warnings are fixed in 4.14 so there will be no regressions from
> > > upgrading.
> > 
> > Really?  I see a number of these only showing up in much newer kernels.

Sigh that's what I get for not double checking my email after adding
patches :(

> > Specifically these patches:
> >   1f60652dd586 ("pinctrl: max77620: Use define directive for max77620_pinconf_param values")
> >   a0dd6773038f ("phy: tegra: remove redundant self assignment of 'map'")
> >   a9903f04e0a4 ("sched/sysctl: Fix attributes of some extern declarations")
> > 
> > from the "arm" mbox you provided.  Why shouldn't the above patches go
> > into 4.14.y and in some cases, also 4.19.y and 4.20.y?

They should. All three pick cleanly to 4.14.y. Only the first one needs
to be taken into 4.19.y and 4.20.y.

> 
> Also, why are you wanting 238bcbc4e07f ("kbuild: consolidate Clang
> compiler flags") to be in 4.9?  You put it as the last patch in the
> series, nothing depends on it, which seems odd...
> 
> greg k-h

This was more of a "to make future backports easier" commit, plus makes
that block way easier to read. I should have included 3bd9805090af
("Makefile: Export clang toolchain variables") as well though. I don't
feel strongly about it either way but I also don't think the commit
hurts anything.

I'll leave it up to you and provide you with an updated merge resolution
accordingly.

Thanks!
Nathan