linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] gpiolib: Never return internal error codes to user space

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:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 21:15:39 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Suresh Balakrishnan <suresh.balakrishnan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] gpiolib: Never return internal error codes to
 user space

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:39:50PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:08 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
> > <bgolaszewski@...libre.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:30 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 04:04:34PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:45:16AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 07:24:51AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 06:50:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > > > Fixes: d7c51b47ac11 ("gpio: userspace ABI for reading/writing GPIO lines")
> > > > > > > > Fixes: 61f922db7221 ("gpio: userspace ABI for reading GPIO line events")
> > > > > > > > Fixes: 3c0d9c635ae2 ("gpiolib: cdev: support GPIO_V2_GET_LINE_IOCTL and GPIO_V2_LINE_GET_VALUES_IOCTL")
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > > You immediately revert this patch in patch 2.
> > > > > > > My understanding is that is not allowed within a patch set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why split the patches instead of going direct to the new helper?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's for backporting to make it easier. (I deliberately left the context above)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can fold them if maintainers think it's okay to do.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure what the constraints are on backporting, but wouldn't it be
> > > > > simpler and cleaner to backport the new helper?
> > > >
> > > > Logically (and ideally) it would be three different patches:
> > > >  1) introduce helper
> > > >  2) use helper
> > > >  3) fix places where it's needed to be done
> > > >
> > > > But the above scheme doesn't fit backporting idea (we don't backport new
> > > > features and APIs without really necessity). So, the options left are:
> > > >
> > > > Option a: One patch (feels a bit like above)
> > > > Option b: Two patches like in this series (yes, you are correct about
> > > >           disadvantages)
> > > >
> > > > > But, as you say, it is the maintainers' call.
> >
> > > Third option is to backport this patch but apply the helper
> > > immediately to master.
> >
> > If I got you correctly, you want to have two patches, one for
> > backporting and one for current, correct? But how can we backport
> > something which has never been upstreamed?
> >
> 
> Well we would not technically backport anything - there would be one
> patch for mainline and a separate fix for stable.

So, what should I do here?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko