linux-kernel - Re: stable-rc/linux-4.19.y bisection: baseline.login on sun8i-h3-libretech-all-h3-cc

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]

Message-ID: <20200124145529.GG1706@sasha-vm>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:55:29 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        mgalka@...labora.com,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: stable-rc/linux-4.19.y bisection: baseline.login on
 sun8i-h3-libretech-all-h3-cc

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 02:44:19PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:18 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:58:32PM +0000, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>>
>> > Please see the bisection report below about a boot failure, it
>> > looks legit as this commit was made today:
>>
>> > >     Fix it by ignoring the config in the device tree for now: the
>> > >     later patches in the series will push all inversion handling
>> > >     over to the gpiolib core and set it up properly in the
>> > >     boardfiles for legacy devices, but I did not finish that
>> > >     for this kernel cycle.
>
>So here the patch clearly says it is for "this kernel cycle"
>which I feel implies that it is NOT for any previous kernels
>stable or not...

This read to me as if this patch plasters the issue for now, and a
proper fix will follow in the next cycle.

>I'm sorry if I missed the "look at this thing that we will
>apply to stable soon" mail, sadly there are just too many
>of these for me to handle sometimes. (Maybe it means I
>am making too many mistakes to begin with, mea culpa.)
>
>> > >     Reported-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
>> > >     Reported-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
>> > >     Reported-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
>> > >     Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
>> > >     Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>> > >     Tested-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
>> > >     Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
>> > >     Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>>
>> Oh dear, this is another bot backported commit which I suspect is
>> lacking some context or other from all the other work that was done with
>> GPIO enables :(
>
>This AI seems a bit confused :/
>Maybe it is the prolific use of the word "fix" that triggers it?

Right, it's a combo of a few things: one of them is indeed the work
"fix", but few others are the Reported-by tags, the simplicity of the
commit, and so on.

I'll drop this patch, sorry about this.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha