From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF0BC169C4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C8721855 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="X3inc+0g" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727870AbfBKVoI (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:44:08 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f67.google.com ([209.85.208.67]:38262 "EHLO mail-ed1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727390AbfBKVoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:44:07 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f67.google.com with SMTP id h58so383003edb.5 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:44:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jz7m1a+FGluQZXoGscSuIG8g4cW33nsSXIWoU/bTeSM=; b=X3inc+0g8d71KYB0klwWiT67APWByXJ6pi8dREpRgCV/SEteitRy5bClBU7beUcaVv PWDWV+Qg+2kdHSgLNnd7vSyy8XB4oysxfNpI/K4l37XyV9OpQ9wLbWiHBvd0uS2rqSSh dISz7M4vpxFYp9sscuLwucCfv6sHRKx+w/yISvpLt2HZfkyph5ODkk/tp1M9/1LwSHqR ebqkz+QbFa1NgKzJ3MJ4AvcnpVmy5vDMYRAOT54l9R8RXBfnMjsQ6BgV0LvwBmMapbHs ckUBzRxS3PtBbhLrtZ3Yfq575vcVFfGfBDJn3jifHqrBUVARpVpv11Hc92cK6Kz/qUac xAHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jz7m1a+FGluQZXoGscSuIG8g4cW33nsSXIWoU/bTeSM=; b=o8HLuPpsNCFL/RZ3C2/F3q0sPKGcmkqBdp9bMrhlGkwe6Z5LwzbrcND0bHVqejQJVK BLBRpuzwnte6ighevJBT5BvgFDPAGSnJlT6otv313OyRWavSNKE1T7B83zNDRXXUc6r6 yz1DBTmwOt0sXrYFYWA3oeRa18FyamPcPIeK2gTHvLG95dqb2omOV/C9ZS3ik+FueUfn ko3nKSYq5a8n0Txz3YcikWADtlZVYB3UPG6/07hiduPwfN4BCunKafe74cgshNv2K1qt I86wmZnYXyNwnmEjHgpuhRG4vzBNxhHRdhHZKwDEj6IveKDuyUPEgjUQljQ+zKQNaU0O PU4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuacqFV8gTtWRkrxRou3E4v0c34wwbjJEv6UstteovdIfSds3X8v B3NOtHuuqCI2p2BZZlURQ/OMzTvplu/EIC1lucdUOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbziUUoG76CIg2kxrZq0Bgxy2x1YMuzrqPnTRbLTGSn1e3BSib8gxUndBS28MkXeVUPgl3pCZAcyribIcwga/g= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f0d8:: with SMTP id dk24mr222755ejb.108.1549921445662; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:44:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190205190849.GA2686@kunai> <20190211034021.242932-1-jsperbeck@google.com> <20190211092417.7f211ee0@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20190211092417.7f211ee0@gandalf.local.home> From: John Sperbeck Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:43:54 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: core-smbus: don't trace smbus_reply data on errors To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:24 AM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:40:21 -0800 > John Sperbeck wrote: > > > If an smbus transfer fails, there's no guarantee that the output > > buffer was written. So, avoid trying to show the output buffer when > > tracing after an error. This was 'mostly harmless', but would trip > > up kasan checking if left-over cruft in byte 0 is a large length, > > causing us to read from unwritten memory. > > This looks fine to me, but I'm not sure how the i2c maintainers feel, > but I always require that a new patch version starts a new thread, and > not be part of a older thread release (causes these patches to be > hidden from those that read patches in threading mode). That sounds reasonable to me. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll create a v3 as a new thread. Thanks.