linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Update version on GET_NEXT

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:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:59:42 +0200
From:   Patryk Duda <pdk@...ihalf.com>
To:     Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...gle.com>,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        upstream@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Update version on
 GET_NEXT_EVENT failure

czw., 4 sie 2022 o 11:00 Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Patryk Duda wrote:
> > Fixes: 3300fdd630d4 ("platform/chrome: cros_ec: handle MKBP more events flag")
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 5.10+
>
> Any concerns if removing the Cc tag?  As I think a Fixes tag should be
> sufficient.  On a related note, why did you specify for only 5.10+?
Submitting patches document mentions that 'Fixes:' helps stable kernel
team in determining which stable kernel versions should receive the fix.

However, there is a note:
"Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules process
nor the requirement to Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org on all stable patch
candidates."
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.19/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes

Stable kernel versions older than 5.10 don't suffer from this issue.
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Patryk Duda <pdk@...ihalf.com>
>
> You should collect the Reviewed-by tags the patch already got as dropping
> `ver_mask` initialization isn't a big change.  I could do that for the patch
> this time.
Thank you!
>
> [...]
> > v0 -> v1
> > - Dropped `ver_mask` initialization.
>
> Please start versioning from v1 next time.
Ok, thanks!