linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] mtd: spi-nor: sst: fix BPn bits for the SST25VF064C

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: <X8ktStibpw1phn4G@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:24:10 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com
Cc:     michael@...le.cc, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com,
        richard@....at, vigneshr@...com, boris.brezillon@...labora.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] mtd: spi-nor: sst: fix BPn bits for the
 SST25VF064C

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:08:49PM +0000, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 12/3/20 4:39 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > Am 2020-12-03 15:34, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
> >> On 12/3/20 1:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
> >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
> >>> the content is safe
> >>>
> >>> This flash part actually has 4 block protection bits.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
> >>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v5.7+
> >>
> >> While the patch is correct according to the datasheet, it was
> >> not tested, so it's not a candidate for stable. I would update
> >> the commit message to indicate that the the patch was made
> >> solely on datasheet info and not tested, I would add the fixes
> >> tag, and strip cc-ing to stable.
> > 
> > What is the difference? Any commit with a Fixes tag will also land
> > in the stable trees. Just that it will cause compile errors for
> > kernel older than 5.7.
> > 
> > So if you don't want to have it in stable then you must not add
> > a Fixes: tag either.
> > 
> 
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't say that the
> Fixes tag is a guarantee that a patch will hit the stable kernels.
> 
> Since this patch was not tested, it's not a candidate for stable as
> per the first rule. It's a theoretical fix, because it should indeed
> fix the locking as per the datasheet. Even for theoretical fixes, I
> would like to know what commit broke the functionality, and that's why
> I asked for the Fixes tag.
> 
> We don't want the patch in stable, so that's why I said that I would
> indicate in the commit message that it was not tested, and that I
> would strip the cc to stable.
> 
> Maybe it's just my understanding. Others may help.

Your understanding is correct.  But note that we might accidentally pick
it up with the Fixes: tag at a later date, so be aware that you might
want to make the text in the changelog really obvious that it should not
go into a stable kernel, and why not (hint, if you have a Fixes: tag,
that's usually a good reason _to_ include it...)

thanks,

greg k-h