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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2c66659b-ecff-c6bb-38c1-c1172780c710@microchip.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:08:49 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <michael@...le.cc>
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 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.