linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-35906: drm/amd/display: Send DTBCLK disable message on first commit

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: <2024052136-cubbyhole-ecologist-5b68@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:39:51 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-35906: drm/amd/display: Send DTBCLK disable message on
 first commit

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:28:41AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> CVE-2024-35881 to revert f341055b10bd ("drm/amd/display: Send DTBCLK
> disable message on first commit") by 3a6a32b31a11 ("Revert
> "drm/amd/display: Send DTBCLK disable message on first commit"") has
> been filed as well.
> 
> Is this really intentional? Should both be rejected?

I don't think so as we had releases with the original commit in it,
which was buggy so then the second one was needed.  So if you only took
the first fix, you have a problem, and need the second one.  If you take
both, all is good.  If you took neither, also all is good.  So be safe
and take both :)

thanks,

greg k-h