netdev - Re: One-off regression fix for 6.3 [was: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath9k: Don't mark channelmap stack variable read-only in ath9k_mci_update_wlan

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:38:19 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: One-off regression fix for 6.3 [was: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath9k:
 Don't mark channelmap stack variable read-only in
 ath9k_mci_update_wlan_channels()]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:09 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk> wrote:
>>
>> So, with a bit of prodding from Thorsten, I'm writing this to ask you if
>> you'd be willing to pull this patch directly from the mailing list as a
>> one-off? It's a fairly small patch, and since it's a (partial) revert
>> the risk of it being the cause of new regressions should be fairly
>> small.
>
> Sure. I'm always open to direct fixes when there is no controversy
> about the fix. No problem. I still happily deal with individual
> patches.

Awesome, thanks!

> And yes, I do consider "regression in an earlier release" to be a
> regression that needs fixing.
>
> There's obviously a time limit: if that "regression in an earlier
> release" was a year or more ago, and just took forever for people to
> notice, and it had semantic changes that now mean that fixing the
> regression could cause a _new_ regression, then that can cause me to
> go "Oh, now the new semantics are what we have to live with".
>
> But something like this, where the regression was in the previous
> release and it's just a clear fix with no semantic subtlety, I
> consider to be just a regular regression that should be expedited -
> partly to make it into stable, and partly to avoid having to put the
> fix into _another_ stable kernel..

OK, duly noted; thank you for clarifying :)

-Toke