linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: sysfs: fix inverted pointer logic

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:01:11 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sysfs: fix inverted pointer logic

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:52 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:52:48AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Fixes: d83cee3d2bb1 ("gpio: protect the pointer to gpio_chip in gpio_device with SRCU")
>
> I'm wondering if instead tons of fixes you can just fold the patches and rebase your tree.
>
> Yes, we still have time to let it soak in Linux Next, so Torvalds won't complain.
> It will be much less burden to anybody who wants to backport this nice work.
>

No, I don't think so. Rebasing is reserved for really special cases
when nothing else can be done. Fixes like that should be expected for
a big rework like this. This is honestly a strange idea.

And I don't think anyone should backport this work. It's simply way
too big and touches too many places.

Bart