linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] nvmem: patches (set 1) for 6.15

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: <2025040143-espionage-poison-2345@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 20:18:51 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] nvmem: patches (set 1) for 6.15

On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 02:56:50PM +0000, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org wrote:
> From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Here are few nvmem patches for 6.15, Could you queue
> these for 6.15.
> 
> patche include
> 	- updates to bindings to include MSM8960, X1E80100, MS8937,
> 	  IPQ5018
> 	- add support to bit offsets for register strides exceeding
> 	  single byte
> 	- add rockchip-otp variants.
> 	- Few enhancements in qfprom and rochchip nvmem providers.

Ok, I wanted to apply these, and tried to, but they fail horribly
because:

Commit: 1b14625bd6d4 ("nvmem: qfprom: switch to 4-byte aligned reads")
	Fixes tag: Fixes: 11ccaa312111 ("nvmem: core: verify cell's raw_len")
	Has these problem(s):
		- Target SHA1 does not exist
Commit: a8a7c7e34093 ("nvmem: core: update raw_len if the bit reading is required")
	Fixes tag: Fixes: 11ccaa312111 ("nvmem: core: verify cell's raw_len")
	Has these problem(s):
		- Target SHA1 does not exist
Commit: d44f60348d8c ("nvmem: core: fix bit offsets of more than one byte")
	Fixes tag: Fixes: 11ccaa312111 ("nvmem: core: verify cell's raw_len")
	Has these problem(s):
		- Target SHA1 does not exist

Why do we have 3 patches all fixing the original one here?  Why isn't
the original patch just "correct"?

And you can't send patches with git ids in them, that just doesn't work.

So please, go rework these to not introduce a bug and then fix it up,
that's just not ok when dealing with a patch series.

thanks,

greg k-h