linux-kernel - Re: regression 5.6.4->5.6.5 at drivers/acpi/ec.c

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, 17 Apr 2020 21:54:54 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression 5.6.4->5.6.5 at drivers/acpi/ec.c

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:41 PM Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de> wrote:
>
> On 4/17/20 8:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:36 PM Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/17/20 5:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> Does the patch below (untested) make any difference?
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/acpi/ec.c |    5 ++++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/ec.c
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/ec.c
> >>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/ec.c
> >>> @@ -2067,7 +2067,10 @@ static struct acpi_driver acpi_ec_driver
> >>>               .add = acpi_ec_add,
> >>>               .remove = acpi_ec_remove,
> >>>               },
> >>> -     .drv.pm = &acpi_ec_pm,
> >>> +     .drv = {
> >>> +             .probe_type = PROBE_FORCE_SYNCHRONOUS,
> >>> +             .pm = &acpi_ec_pm,
> >>> +     },
> >>>  };
> >>>
> >>>  static void acpi_ec_destroy_workqueues(void)
> >> I'd say no, but for completeness:
> >
> > OK, it looks like mainline commit
> >
> > 65a691f5f8f0 ("ACPI: EC: Do not clear boot_ec_is_ecdt in acpi_ec_add()")
> >
> > was backported into 5.6.5 by mistake.
> >
> > Can you please revert that patch and retest?
> >
> Yes, reverting that commit solved the issue.

OK, thanks!

Greg, I'm not sure why commit 65a691f5f8f0 from the mainline ended up in 5.6.5.

It has not been marked for -stable or otherwise requested to be
included AFAICS.  Also it depends on other mainline commits that have
not been included into 5.6.5.

Can you please drop it?