linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH - for v5.7 stable] opp: Put opp table in dev_pm_opp_set

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: <20200825042414.n2hoahplhjdhwmgy@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:54:14 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH - for v5.7 stable] opp: Put opp table in
 dev_pm_opp_set_rate() for empty tables

On 24-08-20, 18:10, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:00:03PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> > 
> > commit 8979ef70850eb469e1094279259d1ef393ffe85f upstream.
> > 
> > We get the opp_table pointer at the top of the function and so we should
> > put the pointer at the end of the function like all other exit paths
> > from this function do.
> > 
> > Cc: v5.7+ <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v5.7+
> > Fixes: aca48b61f963 ("opp: Manage empty OPP tables with clk handle")
> > Reviewed-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> > [ Viresh: Split the patch into two ]
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > [ Viresh: Update the code for v5.7-stable ]
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/opp/core.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> This is already in the 5.7-stable queue, why add it again?
> 
> confused,

Because I received an email from your bot that it failed to apply to 5.7 stable,
rightly so as the patch was required to be modified.

-- 
viresh