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]

Message-ID: <cb0d2d43-102a-994c-f777-e11d61c77bf5@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:54:05 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 6/30/2021 5:36 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?
>

Yes, you are right.

I found the bug when I tested this patch set. so I appended it at the 
end of the patch set. I will split the patch and send it separately.

Thanks,
Kan