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 18:04:37 +0200
From:   Laurențiu Păncescu <lpancescu@...il.com>
To:     Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Backporting fix for #199981 to 4.19.y?

Hi Salvatore, Greg,

On 6/6/21 2:34 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> 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()").

Many thanks for looking into this. I cherry-picked 
d737f333b211361b6e239fc753b84c3be2634aaa and 
b1c0330823fe842dbb34641f1410f0afa51c29d3 on linux-4.19.y, they indeed 
apply cleanly as Salvatore wrote. I also compiled and tested the kernel, 
the battery is correctly displayed as discharging when unplugged, with a 
7.5 hours remaining as expected.

Does it still make sense for me to resubmit my patch with the "commit 
<full SHA1 hash> upstream." comment fixed? I would trust upstream more 
than me making one commit look reasonable while missing the other commit 
it was based on. Greg, what would you prefer?

Best regards,
Laurențiu