linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 00/11] PCI: dwc: Relatively simple fixes and cleanups

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, 12 Jun 2023 19:41:24 +0300
From:   Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Pavel Parkhomenko <Pavel.Parkhomenko@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 00/11] PCI: dwc: Relatively simple fixes and
 cleanups

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:41:27AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 10:19:54PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > It turns out the recent DW PCIe-related patchset was merged in with
> > several relatively trivial issues left unsettled (noted by Bjorn and
> > Manivannan). All of these lefovers have been fixed in this patchset.
> > Namely the series starts with two bug-fixes. The first one concerns the
> > improper link-mode initialization in case if the CDM-check is enabled. The
> > second unfortunate mistake I made in the IP-core version type helper. In
> > particular instead of testing the IP-core version type the macro function
> > referred to the just IP-core version which obviously wasn't what I
> > intended.
> > ...
> 

> I am unable to do anything with this series.
> 
> Google's legal team is reviewing this matter under applicable laws and
> regulations.

I don't get it, how come Google gets to decide anything about what to
do with this patchset? Even the driver copyright doesn't belong to
Google Inc, not to mentioned the GPL v2 license under which the driver
is released. Could you clarify since when Google (but not the driver
and subsystem maintainers) has been reviewing the patches submitted to
the kernel? And how come it is able to block even the subsystem
maintainers work?

-Serge(y)

> 
> Bjorn