linux-kernel - Re: About regression caused by commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator: resolve supply after creating regulator")

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]

Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:01:19 +0800
From:   Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
CC:     Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: About regression caused by commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator:
 resolve supply after creating regulator")



On 2020/11/23 下午2:47, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 22.11.20 17:35, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 03:43:33PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 09.11.20 00:28, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> On 2020/11/9 上午1:18, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 03:35:33PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>> It turns out that, commit aea6cb99703e ("regulator: resolve supply after
>>>>>> creating regulator") seems to be the cause.
>> [...]
>>> We are still missing some magic fix for stable trees: On the STM32MP15x,
>>> things are broken since 5.4.73 now. And 5.9.y is not booting as well on
>>> that board. Reverting the original commit make it boot again.
>>>
>>> Linus master is fine, though, but I'm tired of bisecting. Any
>>> suggestions? Or is there something queued up already?
>>
>> You might want to look at `git log --grep=aea6cb99703e` if you can't
>> wait for a stable backport.
>>
> 
> Good. Is that flagged and tested for 5.9/5.4 (and whatever is also
> affected) already?

The offending commit is only introduced in v5.10, thus I don't beleive
v5.9/v5.4 is affected unless the commit is backported.

Thanks,
Qu
> 
> Jan
>