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:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:46:58 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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 Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 08:15:40AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>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.

I usually much rather take prerequisite patches rather than do
backports, which is why that patch was selected.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha