From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751351AbcGPAsZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 20:48:25 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:40724 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751054AbcGPAsY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 20:48:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:48:25 +0900 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Brian Norris Cc: Dan Carpenter , David Woodhouse , Frans Klaver , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: potential NULL dereference Message-ID: <20160716004825.GA10855@kroah.com> References: <20160715110629.GB9258@mwanda> <20160716003209.GC76613@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160716003209.GC76613@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:32:09PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > + stable > > Hi Dan, > > Patch looks good, but one question. > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:06:30PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > We check for NULL but then dereference "info->mtd" on the next line. > > > > Fixes: 72169755cf36 ('mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: show parent device in sysfs') > > What am I supposed to do about tags like this? It appears that the > -stable folks have started taking patches with a 'Fixes' tag alone [0], > even though that's not mentioned in [1]. I ask because I strongly > suspect this patch doesn't fit the rules in [1] -- it quite likely has > only been compile tested; and it qualifies quite well as violating > bullet 4: > > """ > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a > problem..." type thing). > """ > > So, I'd like to keep the tag, but I'd like to avoid having to NAK it in > the stable review process. (And really, I often don't care enough to > even do that. I believe there's a very low chance that something like > this would cause additional problems more than the original bug.) Only sometimes will I pick up something that only has a fixes: tag in it, not all the time, I try to review the patch to see if it does match the rules or not. But, fixing an oops is a good thing, I'm sure you can figure out how to trigger it otherwise you would not be taking such a patch as it would be not be needed :) thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:48:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: potential NULL dereference Message-Id: <20160716004825.GA10855@kroah.com> List-Id: References: <20160715110629.GB9258@mwanda> <20160716003209.GC76613@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20160716003209.GC76613@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Brian Norris Cc: Dan Carpenter , David Woodhouse , Frans Klaver , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:32:09PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > + stable > > Hi Dan, > > Patch looks good, but one question. > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:06:30PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > We check for NULL but then dereference "info->mtd" on the next line. > > > > Fixes: 72169755cf36 ('mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: show parent device in sysfs') > > What am I supposed to do about tags like this? It appears that the > -stable folks have started taking patches with a 'Fixes' tag alone [0], > even though that's not mentioned in [1]. I ask because I strongly > suspect this patch doesn't fit the rules in [1] -- it quite likely has > only been compile tested; and it qualifies quite well as violating > bullet 4: > > """ > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a > problem..." type thing). > """ > > So, I'd like to keep the tag, but I'd like to avoid having to NAK it in > the stable review process. (And really, I often don't care enough to > even do that. I believe there's a very low chance that something like > this would cause additional problems more than the original bug.) Only sometimes will I pick up something that only has a fixes: tag in it, not all the time, I try to review the patch to see if it does match the rules or not. But, fixing an oops is a good thing, I'm sure you can figure out how to trigger it otherwise you would not be taking such a patch as it would be not be needed :) thanks, greg k-h