linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 01/13] iio: dac: ds4424: reject -128 RAW value

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: <aYHhm03Jsv0zsyZ0@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:52:59 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/13] iio: dac: ds4424: reject -128 RAW value

On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 11:54:35AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:34:21AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:

...

> > >  	case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> > > -		if (val < S8_MIN || val > S8_MAX)
> > > +		if (val <= S8_MIN || val > S8_MAX)
> > >  			return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > I still consider using -127, 127 is better than type _MIN/_MAX.
> > This is all due to '='.
> 
> The use of S8_MIN here is intentional to satisfy the requirement for a minimal
> stable backport, as requested by Jonathan:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260201144226.218a43cb@jic23-huawei/
> 
> This patch: Strict "Fix only" for stable. Uses minimal logic changes (<=
> S8_MIN) to avoid introducing new bugs during backporting.
> 
> N++ patch: Full refactoring.
> 
> Can we accept this temporary state to facilitate the stable process?

Ah, if it's request by the maintainer, I can't and won't overrule it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko