linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 041/133] Revert "usb/ohci-platform: Fix a warning when hibernating"

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]

Message-ID: <20200721012943.GA406581@sasha-vm>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:29:43 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 041/133] Revert "usb/ohci-platform: Fix a warning
 when hibernating"

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:07:22PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>On Mon 2020-07-20 17:36:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> This reverts commit c83258a757687ffccce37ed73dba56cc6d4b8a1b.
>>
>> Eugeniu Rosca writes:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 09:00:23AM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote:
>> >After integrating v4.14.186 commit 5410d158ca2a50 ("usb/ehci-platform:
>> >Set PM runtime as active on resume") into downstream v4.14.x, we started
>> >to consistently experience below panic [1] on every second s2ram of
>> >R-Car H3 Salvator-X Renesas reference board.
>> >
>> >After some investigations, we concluded the following:
>> > - the issue does not exist in vanilla v5.8-rc4+
>> > - [bisecting shows that] the panic on v4.14.186 is caused by the lack
>> >   of v5.6-rc1 commit 987351e1ea7772 ("phy: core: Add consumer device
>> >   link support"). Getting evidence for that is easy. Reverting
>> >   987351e1ea7772 in vanilla leads to a similar backtrace [2].
>> >
>> >Questions:
>> > - Backporting 987351e1ea7772 ("phy: core: Add consumer device
>> >   link support") to v4.14.187 looks challenging enough, so probably not
>> >   worth it. Anybody to contradict this?
>
>I'm not sure about v4.14.187, but backport to v4.19 is quite simple
>(just ignore single non-existing file) and passes basic testing.
>
>Would that be better solution for 4.19 and newer?

If Eugeniu could confirm that doing so on 4.19+ works for him, sure.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha