linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 30/62] ASoC: rt5645: add error checking to rt5645

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: <YK4i0e6M6lEIP6rj@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 11:28:33 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 30/62] ASoC: rt5645: add error checking to
 rt5645_probe function

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:15:17PM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:49:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Now I've looked at the patch I don't think it's appropriate for
> > stable, it's essentially equivalent to a patch that adds -Werror

> So I frankly don't have the experience to disagree with you :-) Your
> reasoning certainly seems sound to me. My original motivation for the
> patch (after discussion with others within the mentorship process) was
> that some other sound SoC drivers do this, an example being the Ux500. I
> defer to the decision of the community as a whole of course, and am
> happy with whatever is decided.

Right, so there's multiple bits here - there's checking at all,
there's adding the checks to mainline and there's backporting
them to stable.  For stable we want to be fairly conservative
about what we're backporting since we want people to be able to
just update without worrying about things breaking on them so
something that increases the severity of existing checks is
particularly risky, if the code were already there and people
would've seen any issues it causes when integrating the kernel
it's a different story since the risks are different.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)