linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review

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:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 08:15:40 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review

On 3/19/20 7:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:44:33AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 3/19/20 6:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.5.11 release.
>>> There are 65 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>> let me know.
>>>
>>> Responses should be made by Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:37:04 +0000.
>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>
>>
>> arm:davinci_all_defconfig fails to build.
>>
>> include/linux/gpio/driver.h: In function 'gpiochip_populate_parent_fwspec_twocell':
>> include/linux/gpio/driver.h:552:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
>>   552 | }
>>
>> The problem is caused by commit 8db6a5905e98 ("gpiolib: Add support for the
>> irqdomain which doesn't use irq_fwspec as arg") which is missing its fix,
>> commit 9c6722d85e922 ("gpio: Fix the no return statement warning"). That one
>> is missing a Fixes: tag, providing a good example why such tags are desirable.
> 
> Thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped that patch (others
> complained about it for other reasons) and will push out a -rc2 with
> that fix.
> 

I did wonder why the offending patch was included, but then I figured that
I lost the "we apply too many patches to stable releases" battle, and I didn't
want to re-litigate it.

Guenter