linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 072/185] ALSA: hda: Add codec on bus address table lately

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: <s5hpnjrku5e.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:40:45 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 072/185] ALSA: hda: Add codec on bus address table lately

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:30:25 +0200,
Sasha Levin wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:47:30 +0200,
> >Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> >>
> >> [ Upstream commit ee5f85d9290fe25d460bd320b7fe073075d72d33 ]
> >>
> >> The call of snd_hdac_bus_add_device() is needed only for registering
> >> the codec onto the bus caddr_tbl[] that is referred essentially only
> >> in the unsol event handler.  That is, the reason of this call and the
> >> release by the counter-part function snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() is
> >> just to assure that the unsol event gets notified to the codec.
> >>
> >> But the current implementation of the unsol notification wouldn't work
> >> properly when the codec is still in a premature init state.  So this
> >> patch tries to work around it by delaying the caddr_tbl[] registration
> >> at the point of snd_hdac_device_register().
> >>
> >> Also, the order of snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() and device_del() calls
> >> are shuffled to make sure that the unsol event is masked before
> >> deleting the device.
> >>
> >> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204565
> >> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> >
> >The upstream commit was reverted later by 246bb4aaa4f4, which has even
> >Fixes tag pointing this.  So please drop this.
> 
> I'll drop it, thank you.
> 
> >BTW, this is the second time AUTOSEL overlooked the existing revert.
> >I'm afraid something is missing in the check.
> 
> Usually it's the case that I check for fixes/reverts once I compile the
> series, and again right before I queue it up to a stable tree. In
> between fixes and reverts tend to sneak in just like in this case.
> 
> In general, I also check the -rcs for fixes and reverts during their
> review window, so while sometimes we send out mails with patches that
> have a fix or revert upstream, they rarely make it into a released
> stable kernel.

IMO, it'd be great if you have some check before sending for reviews.
The Fixes tag chain can be parsed relatively easily, after all.


thanks,

Takashi