linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.5 30/36] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp-x13s: Add camera activity LED

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: <ZQnA4o7G4A3YC-pe@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 17:40:18 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, agross@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.5 30/36] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp-x13s: Add
 camera activity LED

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:09:54AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 09:06:54AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 08:15:04AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:

> >> >Call it what you will, but please drop it. Otherwise by that logic you'd
> >> >need to backport all devicetree patches (as well as most driver changes)
> >> >since they ultimately aim at enabling hardware.
> >>
> >> Not all, only ones that re-use existing kernel driver but enable it for
> >> new hardware (i.e. adding a new pci-id/usb-id/dts entries).
> >
> >Again, that's basically all our device-tree patches. And that can break
> >in all sorts of ways. So again, please drop. This does not belong in
> >stable.
> 
> This is part of the criteria we use to select patches, yes? If you have
> an objection around this particular patch then please let me know, or if
> you have an objection around hardware enablement patches in stable then
> we can have a bigger discussion around that one.
> 
> However, just dropping this one for no particular reasonisn't the right
> approach: we've been using this selection criteria for quite a few years
> now.

This patch makes zero sense to backport. It's a place holder for a
camera led that we may one day need. No one marked it for stable, no
one wants it in stable, no one needs it in stable, yet you repeatedly
refuse to drop it and keep wasting my time.

Backports, and especially your autosel ones, always come with a risk.
And here there is ZERO upsides to that. Next time the feature you try to
retroactively enable may not be as trivial and could cause real
regressions.

We're on our knees dealing with development and review of stuff that
people do want and need. And you keep pushing silly things like and
spamming us with backports that no one asked for. I'm just baffled.

Johan