linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "staging: r8188eu: simplify rtw_get_ff

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, 13 Feb 2023 08:27:37 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "staging: r8188eu: simplify rtw_get_ff_hwaddr"

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 07:32:05PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> This reverts commit fd48124e09825797bdc8ff0120f2401030c618ee.
> 
> The cleanup in this commit removes the qsel to addr mappings in
> rtw_get_ff_hwaddr. The underlying assumption is that rtw_write_port
> uses its addr parameter only for the high_queue check.
> 
> This is obviously incorrect as rtw_write_port calls
> ffaddr2pipehdl(pdvobj, addr);
> where addr is mapped to a usb bulk endpoint.
> 
> Unfortunately, testing did not show any problems. The Edimax V2 on which I
> tested has two bulk out endpoints. I guess that with the incorrect patch,
> addr could only be 0 (no high queue) or 6 (high queue), both of which were
> mapped to the first bulk out endpoint. Data transfers did still work...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
> ---
> 
> Hello Greg,
> 
> sorry for introducing a regression in commit fd48124e0982 ("staging:
> r8188eu: simplify rtw_get_ff_hwaddr").
> 
> Could you take this revert before the 6.3 pull request?
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin
> 

I feel like the ancient `git revert` script is not at all in line with
current standards and sets people up for failure.  This one at least
has a commit message.  But
1) The subject doesn't have a correct patch prefix.
2) "commit fd48124e09825797bdc8ff0120f2401030c618ee" is not human
   readable or how we describe commits these days with a 12 char hash.
3) There is no fixes tag.

regards,
dan carpenter