linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/gud: fix NULL crtc dereference on display disable

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: <b2834300-c1b4-4bc0-b6d8-d8bdd581be0a@shenghaoyang.info>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 01:10:49 +0800
From: Shenghao Yang <me@...nghaoyang.info>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Ruben Wauters <rubenru09@....com>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 stable+noautosel@...nel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/gud: fix NULL crtc dereference on display disable

Hi,

> Why are you adding this?
> 
> I suspect it's because checkpatch complains that commits with BUG: in
> the commit message should be CC'd to stable.  (Although, I can't trigger
> that warning now.  Weird).

> Are you planning to manually backport it? If so, you could CC stable
> and then when you get the email that it doesn't apply, then you can do
> the manual backport.  Or you could ignore it.
> 
> Or if you think it's not worth backporting, you could explain why.
> 
> Cc: <stable+noautosel@...nel.org> # too risky for low benefit

Ah - I added that to try and avoid the failed apply email! It's a bug
that only exists in 6.18 and that stable tree will be EOL soon with the 6.19
release, so I figured it's not worth a manual backport.

> If a patch doesn't apply, then the stable scripts aren't going to apply
> it.  It's not necessary to tell the scripts not to try.  To me the
> "noautosel" basically means that it's important to not backport the
> patch.  Maybe the API has changed so backporting it will cause a subtle
> breakage.

Thanks! I wasn't aware of that connotation - I'll resend without it.

Shenghao