linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 5/6] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix invalid unit check

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, 30 Jun 2021 11:36:09 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, jolsa@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        yao.jin@...ux.intel.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 5/6] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix invalid unit check

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:14:02AM -0700, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> The uncore unit with the type ID 0 and the unit ID 0 is missed.
> 
> The table3 of the uncore unit maybe 0. The
> uncore_discovery_invalid_unit() mistakenly treated it as an invalid
> value.
> 
> Remove the !unit.table3 check.
> 
> Fixes: edae1f06c2cd ("perf/x86/intel/uncore: Parse uncore discovery tables")
> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Why is a bugfix that needs to be backported patch 5 in the series?
Shouldn't that be totally independant and sent on its own and not part
of this series at all so that it can be accepted and merged much
quicker?  It also should not depened on the previous 4 patches, right?

Andi, you know better than this...

greg k-h