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: <20260205204101.5f84e150@jic23-huawei>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 20:41:01 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/13] iio: dac: ds4424: reject -128 RAW value

On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:52:59 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:

> 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.

FWIW I didn't really feel strongly about the -127 vs <= S8_MIN
was more after a trivial backportable fix.  

Meh, it's temporary state for upstream (if not stable). Let's not worry about it.

Thanks

Jonathan

>