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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200306053455.GY2540@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 07:34:55 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
        "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 Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:05:47PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

OK, that works for me as well.

Nicholas, can you send this one again after 5.7-rc1 is is released? I
can then pick it up to my tree.