linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw

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, 25 Aug 2021 13:38:02 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, straube.linux@...il.com,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read16

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/25/21 1:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:55:37PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > > The main problem, that no one knows who is the "old". Greg can take patches
> > > in any order he wants
> > 
> > Patches are always taken in first come first serve.
> > 
> 
> 
> Ok, but if pending patch needs new version, then it will be taken at the
> end?

Versions don't matter.  No one is tracking any of that.

A patch arrives.  It is either applied or rejected.  First come first
serve.

> 
> Here is the situation we have:
> 
> 	I have the patch series based on old function behavior, it was
> 	posted first
> 
> 	Then Fabio posted refactoring of the function and it changes
> 	return values.
> 
> 
> Both series are pending right now and made on top of staging-next branch.
> Who needs to rebase? I think, applying these series as-is can broke the
> driver, since error handling will be broken

That's a bug then.  The patch should be rejected.  You're not allowed to
break the code.

Also don't write patches which lead to merge order breaking the code
silently.  That makes it difficult for stable as well.  For example,
don't do this:

-void frob(int a, int b);
+void frob(int b, int a);

In that case, you would change the name of the function so that the
build would break when people mix old and new code.

regards,
dan carpenter