linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 v1 1/2] hwmon: Introduce hwmon_device_register_for

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: <4bafbfe7-1a9e-651e-41c1-76a131c1a477@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 19:31:10 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     William McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 v1 1/2] hwmon: Introduce
 hwmon_device_register_for_thermal

On 6/29/22 16:18, William McVicker wrote:
> On 06/29/2022, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 6/29/22 15:58, Will McVicker wrote:
>>> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>>
>>> [ upstream commit e5d21072054fbadf41cd56062a3a14e447e8c22b ]
>>>
>>> The thermal subsystem registers a hwmon driver without providing
>>> chip or sysfs group information. This is for legacy reasons and
>>> would be difficult to change. At the same time, we want to enforce
>>> that chip information is provided when registering a hwmon device
>>> using hwmon_device_register_with_info(). To enable this, introduce
>>> a special API for use only by the thermal subsystem.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Rafael J . Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>
>> NACK. The patch introducing the problem needs to be reverted.
> 
> I'm fine with that as well. I've already verified that fixes the issue. I'll go
> ahead and send the revert.
> 

My understanding is that it is already queued up.

Guenter