linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10] coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable

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:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 11:24:33 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     James Clark <james.clark@....com>, stable@...nel.org,
        Aishwarya TCV <Aishwarya.TCV@....com>,
        Cristian Marussi <Cristian.Marussi@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10] coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:59:24AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 07/11/2022 09:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:23:26AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > On 07/11/2022 09:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:20:03AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
> > > > > commit 6746eae4bbaddcc16b40efb33dab79210828b3ce upstream.
> > > > 
> > > > Isn't this commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 instead?
> > > 
> > > This was reverted in commit d76308f03ee1 and pushed in later
> > > with fixups as 6746eae4bbadd.
> > 
> > So which should be applied?
> 
> Sorry, this particular post is a backport for v5.10 stable branch.
> 
> > 
> > confused,
> 
> Now I am too. What is expected here ? My understanding is, we
> should stick the "upstream" commit that is getting backported
> at the beginning of the commit description. In that sense,
> the commit id in this patch looks correct to me. Please let
> me know if this is not the case.
> 
> As such, this is only for 5.10.x branch. The rest are taken
> care of.
> 
> Please let us know if we are something missing.

We already have commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 queued
up in the 5.10 stable queue.  Is that not correct?  It has the same
subject line as this one.

Still confused.

thanks,

greg k-h