linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 14/36] media: rkisp1: uapi: change hist_bins array type from __u16 to _

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]

Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 10:33:43 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
        Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@...labora.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 14/36] media: rkisp1: uapi: change hist_bins
 array type from __u16 to __u32

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:44:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:39:41PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 09/02/2021 14:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:45:35PM +0100, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 08.02.21 um 21:46 schrieb Hans Verkuil:
>> >>> On 08/02/2021 18:57, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> >>>> From: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@...labora.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [ Upstream commit 31f190e0ccac8b75d33fdc95a797c526cf9b149e ]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Each entry in the array is a 20 bits value composed of 16 bits unsigned
>> >>>> integer and 4 bits fractional part. So the type should change to __u32.
>> >>>> In addition add a documentation of how the measurements are done.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dafna, Helen, does it make sense at all to backport these three patches to
>> >>> when rkisp1 was a staging driver?
>> >>>
>> >>> I would be inclined not to backport this.
>> >>
>> >> I also don't think it makes sense since this changes the uapi and it is not really a bug fix.
>> >
>> > Why was it ok to change the uapi in a newer kernel and not an older one?
>>
>> In the older kernels this was a staging driver and the driver API was not public.
>> It's debatable whether there is any benefit from trying to backport patches like
>> this to a staging driver like that.
>>
>> Also, these backports are incomplete, there are other patches that would need to
>> be applied to make this work. Applying just these three patches without the other
>> three (commits 66d81de7ea9d, fc672d806bd7 and ef357e02b6c4) makes it very messy
>> indeed.
>>
>> I'd just leave the staging driver in older kernels as-is. Certainly don't just
>> apply these three patches without the other three commits, that would make it
>> even worse.
>
>Fair enough, Sasha, can you drop these?

Yup.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha