linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Revert "thunderbolt: Prevent crash if non-active NVMem file is read"

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: <101ca1ac-c3d3-6685-e21b-4c519346b67f@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:05:47 +0000
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Revert "thunderbolt: Prevent crash if non-active
 NVMem file is read"



On 04/03/2020 16:18, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:07:29PM +0000, Nicholas Johnson wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 12:33:10PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 03:43:29PM +0000, Nicholas Johnson wrote:
>>>> This reverts commit 03cd45d2e219301880cabc357e3cf478a500080f.
>>>>
>>>> Since NVMEM subsystem gained support for write-only instances, this
>>>> workaround is no longer required, so drop it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>
>>>
>>> Assuming this goes through The NVMem tree:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> If that's not the case, please let me know. I can also take them through
>>> the Thunderbolt tree.
>> I do not know how this would normally work - I have not experienced much
>> cross-subsystem work. Perhaps it should be taken through your tree. If
>> it goes through your tree and not part of this series, perhaps it does
>> not make sense for it to be authored by me, either. It's just a revert;
>> it does not take a lot of effort or doing something original.
> 
> Your authorship is fine.
> 
> Since this patch depends on the first one, it should go together with
> that one either to NVMem tree or Thunderbolt tree. Either is fine by me
> but if I take them then I need an ack from Srinivas.
> 

I applied 2/3 patch which should show up in next 5.7-rc1 release, with 
that in place you can revert this patch. Please take this patch via 
respective tree, it does not make much sense for me to apply this as its 
not going to break any build.


--srini