linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Fix device links functional breakage in 4.19.99

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:10:43 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Fix device links functional breakage in 4.19.99

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:54 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> As mentioned in an earlier email thread [1], 4.19.99 broke the ability
> to create stateful and stateless device links between the same set of
> devices when it pulled in a valid bug fix [2]. While the fix was valid,
> it removes a functionality that was present before the bug fix.
>
> This patch series attempts to fix that by pulling in more patches from
> upstream. I've just done compilation testing so far. But wanted to send
> out a v1 to see if this patch list was acceptable before I fixed up the
> commit text format to match what's needed for stable mailing list.
>
> Some of the patches are new functionality, but for a first pass, it was
> easier to pull these in than try and fix the conflicts. If these patches
> are okay to pull into stable, then all I need to do is fix the commit
> text.

I took a closer look at all the patches. Everyone of them is a bug fix
except Patch 4/6. But Patch 4/6 is a fairly minimal change and I think
it's easier/cleaner to just pick it up too instead of trying to
resolve merge conflicts in the stable branch.

1/6 - Fixes what appears to be a memory leak bug in upstream.
2/6 - Fixes error in initial state of the device link if it's created
under some circumstances.
3/6 - Fixes a ref count bug in upstream. Looks like it can lead to memory leaks?
4/6 - Adds a minor feature to kick off a probe attempt of a consumer
5/6 - Fixes the break in functionality that happened in 4.19.99
6/6 - Fixes bug in 5/6 (upstream bug)

Greg

Do these patches look okay for you to pull into 4.19 stable? If so,
please let me know if you need me to send v2 with commit fix up.

The only fix up needed is to these patches at this point is changing
"(cherry picked from commit ...)" with "[ Upstream commit ... ]". The
SHAs themselves are the correct SHAs from upstream.

Thanks,
Saravana