linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f25aed85cf262324eb19f2ff56175cd0@milecki.pl>
Date:   Sat, 21 Oct 2023 22:56:02 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"

On 2023-10-21 22:51, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:31:55PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 2023-10-21 19:18, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:55:43AM +0100, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org
>> > wrote:
>> > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>> > >
>> > > This reverts commit 517f14d9cf3533d5ab4fded195ab6f80a92e378f.
>> > >
>> > > It seems that "no_of_node" config option was added to help mtd's case.
>> > >
>> > > DT nodes of MTD partitions (that are also NVMEM devices) may contain
>> > > subnodes that SHOULD NOT be treated as NVMEM fixed cells. To prevent
>> > > NVMEM core code from parsing them "no_of_node" was set to true and
>> > > that
>> > > made for_each_child_of_node() in NVMEM a no-op.
>> > >
>> > > With the introduction of "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option
>> > > things got more explicit. MTD subsystem simply tells NVMEM when to
>> > > look
>> > > for fixed cells and there is no need to hack "of_node" pointer
>> > > anymore.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>> > > Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
>> >
>> > Why isn't this also marked for stable trees?
>> 
>> I think it's explained in commit message but maybe it's not clear
>> enough?
> 
> It's not, I just read it again and can't figure it out, sorry.
> 
>> This revert (PATCH 4/6) is possible only with the previous PATCH 2/6
>> applied first. In other words "no_of_node" config option can be 
>> dropped
>> only after adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option.
> 
> Ah, ok, that's not obvious :)
> 
>> Since adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" is not a bug/regression fix I
>> didn't mark it for stable and so I couldn't mark revert for stable.
> 
> That's fine, but can you please resend this with a better changelog 
> that
> makes it obvious why now we can revert the old patch, otherwise the
> autobot will come along and attempt to backport it to stable as well.

Oops, my bad then. I'll resend tomorrow. Thanks for quick answer!

-- 
Rafał Miłecki