linux-kernel - Re: Backporting fix for #199981 to 4.19.y?

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:   Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:34:11 +0200
From:   Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Laurențiu Păncescu <lpancescu@...il.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Backporting fix for #199981 to 4.19.y?

Hi Laurențiu, Greg,

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 05:42:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 04:50:19PM +0200, Laurențiu Păncescu wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On 6/3/21 11:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > That commit does not apply cleanly and I need a backported version.  Can
> > > you do that and test it to verify it works and then send it to us to be
> > > applied?
> > 
> > I now have a patch against linux-4.19.y, tested on my EeePC just now: the
> > battery status and discharge rate are shown correctly.
> > 
> > I've never submitted a patch before, should I put "commit <short-hash>
> > upstream." as the first line of my commit message, followed by another line
> > stating which branch I would like this to be merged to? Should I also
> > include the original commit message of the backported commit? And then use
> > git format-patch? I just read through [1] and [2], but they don't say
> > anything specific about commit messages for backported patches.
> 
> Yes, what you describe here should be great.  Look at the stable mailing
> list archives on lore.kernel.org for other examples of this happening,
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210603162852.1814513-1-zsm@chromium.org is
> one example.

Instead of doing a specific backport, maybe it is enough to pick
a46393c02c76 ("ACPI: probe ECDT before loading AML tables regardless
of module-level code flag") frst on 4.19.y and then the mentioned fix
b1c0330823fe ("ACPI: EC: Look for ECDT EC after calling
acpi_load_tables()").

Note I have only checked that this resolved the clean apply on top of
the current v4.19.193.

Regards,
Salvatore