linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: sifive: lock port in startup()/shutdown() callbacks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025042252-geology-causation-a455@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 15:16:21 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>, alex@...ti.fr,
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
	conor.dooley@...rochip.com, jirislaby@...nel.org,
	john.ogness@...utronix.de, palmer@...belt.com,
	paul.walmsley@...ive.com, pmladek@...e.com,
	samuel.holland@...ive.com, u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: sifive: lock port in startup()/shutdown()
 callbacks

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 03:07:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/22/25 12:50, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:20:42PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> 
> >> I admit it's surprising to see such a request as AFAIK it's normally done to
> >> mix stable fixes and new features in the same series (especially when the
> >> patches depend on each other), and ordering the fixes first and marking only
> >> them as stable should be sufficient. We do that all the time in -mm. I
> >> thought that stable works with stable marked commits primarily, not series?
> > 
> > Yes, but when picking which "branch" to apply a series to, what would
> > you do if you have some "fix some bugs, then add some new features" in a
> > single patch series?  The one to go to -final or the one for the next
> > -rc1?
> 
> As a maintainer I could split it myself.

You must not have that many patches to review, remember, some of us get
a few more than others ;)

> > I see a lot of bugfixes delayed until -rc1 because of this issue, and
> > it's really not a good idea at all.
> 
> In my experience, most of the time these fixes are created because a dev:
> 
> - works on the code to implement the feature part
> - while working at the code, spots an existing bug
> - the bug can be old (Fixes: commit a number of releases ago)
> - wants to be helpful so isolates the fix separately as an early patch of
> the series and marks stable because the bug can be serious enough in theory
> - at the same time there are no known reports of the bug being hit in the wild
> 
> In that case I don't see the urgency to fix it ASAP (unless it's e.g.
> something obviously dangerously exploitable) so it might not be such a bad
> idea just to put everything towards next rc1.

Yes, but then look at the huge number of "bugfixes" that land in -rc1.
Is that ok or not?  I don't know...

> This very thread seems to be a good example of the above. I see the later
> version added a
> Fixes: 45c054d0815b ("tty: serial: add driver for the SiFive UART")
> which is a v5.2 commit.

Agreed, but delaying a known-fix for weeks/months feels bad to me.

thanks,

greg k-h