linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] media: cros-ec-cec: do not bail on device_init

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: <CALFZZQHsDV9XPyeJ4_NJ=FHF3LSk4j0aMWF3fbvDEdUrs_0O1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:39:25 +0200
From:   Dariusz Marcinkiewicz <darekm@...gle.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Dariusz Marcinkiewicz <darekm@...omium.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] media: cros-ec-cec: do not bail on
 device_init_wakeup failure

Hi.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:45 PM Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com> wrote:

> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:23 PM Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dariusz Marcinkiewicz <darekm@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > This can be CCed to stable, I guess?
> > >
> >
> > That issue is not a recent regression but has been in there since the
> > very beginning.  So it might be argued that is it not severe enough to
> > warrant cc'ing stable. Happy to do that anyways if you think
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> Confused. Internally you would like to have this patch applied to
> chromeos-4.4. Here you suggest that it may not be important enough to
> apply to stable releases. Which one is it ?
>

It affects us on 4.4, hence the backport to 4.4. I have nothing
against this being merged into the mainline stable. I simply wasn't
sure if that should be considered severe enough to be backported
there. As said before, I am happy to CC this to stable.

Thank you and best regards.

(apologies for double post again)