linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] Revert "staging: fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer

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: <2025070126-undercoat-identity-71bd@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 16:19:09 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
	Abdun Nihaal <abdun.nihaal@...il.com>, andy@...nel.org,
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, tzimmermann@...e.de,
	riyandhiman14@...il.com, willy@...radead.org, notro@...nnes.org,
	thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] Revert "staging: fbtft: fix potential memory leak
 in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:16:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:48:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Abdun Nihaal wrote:
> > > This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
> > > leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").
> > > 
> > > An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
> > > fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
> > > and so reverting the old patch.
> > 
> > Revert has its automatic line, please do not remove it.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I hate the revert format.  It is from when git was invented in 2005.
> It sets you up for failure.  These days we have so many other things
> that we want in patches.
> 
> 1) The subsystem prefix in the subject
> 2) The 12 character hashes
> 3) A proper commit message
> 4) A Fixes tag
> 
> The automated revert commit messages don't have any of that.  It's
> always better to hand write them.

There are tools out there that expect the "traditional" format, so it's
good to keep them if at all possible.

But I agree, for this one it doesn't make sense, just do a fixup patch
on top of the current tree.  It's just a staging driver, not a big deal :)

thanks,

greg k-h