linux-kernel - Re: dmaengine: CPU stalls while loading bluetooth module

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: <9490757c-4d7c-4d8b-97e2-812a237f902b@leemhuis.info>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:28:22 +0100
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: "bumyong.lee" <bumyong.lee@...sung.com>,
 'Linux regressions mailing list' <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 parthiban@...umiz.com, saravanan@...umiz.com,
 'karthikeyan' <karthikeyan@...umiz.com>, vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: dmaengine: CPU stalls while loading bluetooth module

On 20.03.24 01:49, bumyong.lee wrote:
>>>> Hmmm. 6.8 final is due. Is that something we can live with? Or would
>>>> it be a good idea to revert above commit for now and reapply it when
>>>> something better emerged? I doubt that the answer is "yes, let's do
>>>> that", but I have to ask.
>>>
>>> I couldn't find better way now.
>>> I think it's better to follow you mentioned
>>
>> 6.8 is out, but that issue afaics was not resolved, so allow me to ask:
>> did "submit a revert" fell through the cracks or is there some other
>> solution in the works? Or am I missing something?
> 
> "submit a revert" would fix the issue. but it would make another issue
> that the errata[1] 719340 described.

"Make" as it "that other issue was present before the culprit was
applied"? Then that other issue does not matter due to the "no
regression" rule and how Linus afaics wants to see it applied in
practice. For details on the latter, see the quotes from him here:
https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html
 Hence please submit a revert (or tell me if I misunderstood something)
-- or of course a workaround for the other issue that does not cause the
regression people reported.

> [...]
> [1]: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/genc008428/latest

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.