linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] HID: rmi: Check that the RMI_STARTED bit is set before unregistering the RMI transport device

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:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:24:19 +0100 (CET)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Duggan <aduggan@...aptics.com>
cc:     "linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        Federico Cerutti <federico@...es-c.it>,
        Christopher Heiny <Cheiny@...aptics.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: rmi: Check that the RMI_STARTED bit is set before
 unregistering the RMI transport device

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Andrew Duggan wrote:

> Since this second patch was for the input subsystem I decided to just 
> make them separate patches instead of creating a series. However, based 
> on Dmitry's feedback it was determined that the second patch wasn't a 
> good idea and it won't be applied. This first patch is enough to fix the 
> issue by preventing the call to rmi_unregister_transport_device() if the 
> subsequent call to register failed. The only change I would make to this 
> patch would be to remove the last sentence of the comment. If you choose 
> to apply that patch then would this be a change you would make? Or would 
> you prefer I submit a v2 with this update?

I've modified the changelog and applied. Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs