linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/80] 4.19.272-rc1 review

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: <Y90+o7thxeMg369g@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 18:04:35 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/80] 4.19.272-rc1 review

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:56:17PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/02/2023 16:51, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 2/3/23 04:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 03/02/2023 12:04, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 15:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.272 release.
> >>>> There are 80 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >>>> let me know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Responses should be made by Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000.
> >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >>>>          https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.272-rc1.gz
> >>>> or in the git tree and branch at:
> >>>>          git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> >>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> greg k-h
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Following patch caused build error on arm,
> >>>
> >>>> Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>
> >>>>      memory: mvebu-devbus: Fix missing clk_disable_unprepare in mvebu_devbus_probe()
> >>>
> >>> drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c: In function 'mvebu_devbus_probe':
> >>> drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c:297:8: error: implicit declaration of
> >>> function 'devm_clk_get_enabled'
> >>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >>>    297 |  clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> >>>        |        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Already reported:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@intel.com/
> >>
> > 
> > I don't usually check if release candidate reports have been reported already.
> > If I know about it, I may add a reference to the report, but typically I still
> > report it.
> > 
> > Personally I find it discouraging to get those "already reported" e-mails.
> > To me it sounds like "hey, you didn't do your job properly". It should not matter
> > if a problem was already reported or not, and I find it valuable if it is
> > reported multiple times because it gives an indication of the level of test
> > coverage. I would find it better if people would use something like "Also
> > reported:" instead. But then maybe I am just oversensitive, who knows.
> > 
> > Anyway, yes, I noticed this problem as well (and probably overlooked it
> > in my previous report to Greg - sorry for that).
> > 
> 
> Let me rephrase it then:
> 
> This topic is already discussed here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> I proposed to drop both broken backports - mvebu-devbus and
> atmel-sdramc, because they require new features in common clock
> framework API.

Ah, I totally missed that, again, seeing the good in the mess of the
0-day reports here is hard and not obvious at all.  I ignored that and
hence the problem was here.  I've dropped the offending commit now.

thanks,

greg k-h