linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Constify struct tps6594_regulator_irq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <174947401467.104992.10674300768376483889.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:00:14 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, 
 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Constify struct
 tps6594_regulator_irq_type

On Sat, 24 May 2025 18:10:38 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> 'struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type' are not modified in this driver.
> 
> Constifying this structure moves some data to a read-only section, so
> increases overall security.
> 
> On a x86_64, with allmodconfig, as an example:
> Before:
> ======
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>   25645	  14480	     64	  40189	   9cfd	drivers/regulator/tps6594-regulator.o
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/2] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Constify struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type
      commit: c266209eaef4fef863363557817f7d6a68314321
[2/2] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Remove a useless static qualifier
      commit: 9bb3c7df546aac38ea64c736a839ef2c75297631

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark