linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.0 072/246] drm/amd/display: Fix reference counting for struct dc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:46:41 +0200
From:   Mathias Fröhlich <Mathias.Froehlich@....net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Leo Li <sunpeng.li@....com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.0 072/246] drm/amd/display: Fix reference counting for struct dc_sink.

Hi Greg,

On Monday, 15 April 2019 12:50:29 CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:12:47AM +0200, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> > Greg,
> > 
> > as I mentioned in the commit message, I saw more fixes to that area in Alex
> > Deuchers queue when I fed that to Alex. There is one fix that I can think of
> > that interacts with my fixes. Means, we may get unwanted side effects of my
> > patch without the fix mentioned below. With that below patch also selected,
> > I think we should be ok for stable.
> > Alex, AMD people, your opinion?
> > 
> > The one that I can spot not already in linux-5.0.y is:
> > 
> > commit 3f01f098a4e2ef30ef628497c43a3d568e720376
> > Author: Jerry (Fangzhi) Zuo <Jerry.Zuo@....com>
> > Date:   Thu Jan 24 11:46:49 2019 -0500
> > 
> >     drm/amd/display: Clear dc_sink after it gets released
> >     
> >     [Why]
> >     The dc_sink was released but the pointer on the aconnector was
> >     not cleared.
> >     
> >     [How]
> >     Clear it.
> 
> This patch does not apply to the 5.0.y tree, so I can not queue it up :(

Sounds plausible.
And thanks for trying!

I had now the chance to test the 5.0.7 kernel tree as is including just
my patch on the box in question. I can say that it works as expected with 5.0.7
and since I did also not hear complaints on the lists I hope we are good as is!

Many thanks!

best

Mathias