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: <b6e7abf3-b263-410a-8f4c-eb9a8e2efa2b@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:25:19 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] nvmem: patches (set 1) for 6.15

On 03/04/2025 12:18, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/04/2025 12:31, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 09:19:17AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>> HI Greg,
>>>
>>> On 01/04/2025 20:18, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Looks some of your scripts or b4 is picking up older version v1 of the
>>> patchset
>>>
>>> None of the above patches have Fixes tags in the V2 patches that I 
>>> shared
>>> aswell as patches in linux-next.
>>
>> Yes, that looks odd, it looks like b4 pulled in the wrong series, yes.
>>
> 
> Even that looked incorrect, as the v1 series only had one patch("[PATCH 
> 12/14] nvmem: make the misaligned raw_len non-fatal") that had fixes 
> tag. Not sure how these 3 patches are tagged as fixes.
> 
>> But, that's even worse.  Those "fixes" are now not actually marked as
>> fixes of the previous patch.  So that information is totally lost, and
> 
> Its because this patch("PATCH 12/14] nvmem: make the misaligned raw_len 
> non-fatal") is taken as fixup patch and wrapped into the original patch 
> ("nvmem: core: verify cell's raw_len"), Also the sha will not be valid 
> for linus or char-misc tree.
> 
>> again, the first commit here, "nvmem: core: verify cell's raw_len" is
>> broken so much that it took 3 other changes to fix it, which implies
>> that bisection would cause problems if you hit it in the middle here.
>>
> 
> All the patches related to this are enhancements to nvmem core to allow 
> specifying bit offsets for nvmem cell that have 4 bytes strides.
> 
> Specially this check is also an additional check in core to make sure 
> that cell offsets are aligned to register strides.
> 
>> While fixing patches is great, and something we do in the tree all the
>> time, let's not purposefully break things and then fix them up in the
>> same exact patch series please.  That's just sloppy engineering.
>>
>> Please redo this series completely.  I can take the "new device support"
> 
> I can send them but its going to be exactly same series, I dont think 
> anything will change as all of these patches are enhancements and there 
> are no fixes.
> 
> I hope this clarifies a bit, Please let me know if you still want me to 
> resend this series, which is going to be exactly same.

I think Greg is asking to squash the fixup into the relevant patch.

> 
> --srini
>> patches at any time, and really, those should be marked with Cc: stable
>> to get backported, right?  The other ones are written as if they are
>> fixes, so again, I can take them any time, no need to wait for the -rc1
>> merge cycle.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry