linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 044/167] drm/amdgpu: validate user pitch alignment

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: <CAKMK7uFpBnkF4xABdkDMZ8TYhL4jg6ZuGyHGyVeBxc9rkyUtXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:16:21 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 044/167] drm/amdgpu: validate user pitch alignment

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:01 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >> On 2019-09-03 6:23 p.m., Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> >> >
> >> > [ Upstream commit 89f23b6efef554766177bf51aa754bce14c3e7da ]
> >>
> >> Hold your horses!
> >>
> >> This commit and c4a32b266da7bb702e60381ca0c35eaddbc89a6c had to be
> >> reverted, as they caused regressions. See commits
> >> 25ec429e86bb790e40387a550f0501d0ac55a47c &
> >> 92b0730eaf2d549fdfb10ecc8b71f34b9f472c12 .
> >>
> >>
> >> This isn't bolstering confidence in how these patches are selected...
> >
> >The patch _itself_ said to be backported to the stable trees from 4.2
> >and newer.  Why wouldn't we be confident in doing this?
> >
> >If the patch doesn't want to be backported, then do not add the cc:
> >stable line to it...
>
> This patch was picked because it has a stable tag, which you presumably
> saw as your Reviewed-by tag is in the patch. This is why it was
> backported; it doesn't take AI to backport patches tagged for stable...
>
> The revert of this patch, however:
>
>  1. Didn't have a stable tag.
>  2. Didn't have a "Fixes:" tag.
>  3. Didn't have the usual "the reverts commit ..." string added by git
>  when one does a revert.
>
> Which is why we still kick patches for review, even though they had a
> stable tag, just so people could take a look and confirm we're not
> missing anything - like we did here.
>
> I'm not sure what you expected me to do differently here.

Yeah this looks like fail on the revert side, they need to reference
the reverted commit somehow ...

Alex, why got this dropped? Is this more fallout from the back&forth
shuffling you're doing between your internal branches behind the
firewall, and the public history?

Also adding Dave Airlie.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch