linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 002/205] drm/panfrost: Add missing check for pfdev->regulator

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: <20200117165909.GA1949937@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:59:09 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 002/205] drm/panfrost: Add missing check for
 pfdev->regulator

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 04:12:27PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 04:39:37PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > From: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit 52282163dfa651849e905886845bcf6850dd83c2 ]
> 
> This commit is effectively already in 5.4. Confusingly there were two
> versions of this upstream:
> 
> 52282163dfa6 ("drm/panfrost: Add missing check for pfdev->regulator")
> c90f30812a79 ("drm/panfrost: Add missing check for pfdev->regulator")
> 
> It got merged both through a -fixes branch and through the normal merge
> window. The two copies caused a bad merge in mainline and this was
> effectively reverted in commit 603e398a3db2 ("drm/panfrost: Remove NULL
> check for regulator").
> 
> c90f30812a79 is included in v5.4 so should already be in any v5.4.y
> release.

Have I mentioned this month just how much I hate the way the DRM tree
handles stable patches like this?  This kind of fallout is a pain for
stable maintainers, I dred every time I see a drm patch tagged for
stable.

But we've been over this all before :(

greg k-h