linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: qdsp6: q6apm: use dai link pcm id as pcm device number

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, 29 Jun 2023 20:48:42 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        johan+linaro@...nel.org, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com,
        kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: qdsp6: q6apm: use dai link pcm id as pcm device
 number

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 06:38:38PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 07:22:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > It shouldn't matter for stable or not, if the change is acceptable in
> > Linus's tree, with the userspace visable change, then it should be
> > acceptable in any active stable branch as well.  There is no difference
> > here for userspace api/abi rules.
> 
> As discussed before your tolerance for risk in stable is *far* higher
> than mine, if there's any value in doing this at all it's probably
> within what would get taken but that doesn't mean that it's something
> that it's sensible to highlight as an important fix like tagging for
> stable does.  It's extremely unclear that it fits the severity criteria
> that are supposed to be being applied to stable, though obviously the
> documentation doesn't fit the actual practice these days.

It's not a matter of "tolerance for risk", it's a "if this change is
good enough for future releases, why isn't it good enough for older
releases as well?"

As you know, we don't break user interfaces, so either this is a break
or it isn't, stable trees have nothing to do with it as a normal user
would "hit" this when updating to run Linus's tree, just as easily as
they would "hit" it updating their stable kernel version.

thanks,

greg k-h