On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:47:14PM +0100, Quentin Casasnovas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:10:17PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Not all of the DVO functions were checking the return value from their > > i2c routines when reading registers. This could lead to us feeding > > garbage values back into the hardware, possible causing further > > failures. In some cases the uninitialised stack values were being > > written into the kernel log. > > > > Quentin Casasnovas suggested the simple solution of just initialising > > the output parameter to zero in all cases, but we may as well spend the > > extra few moments to fix it correctly. > > I'm not sure your patch would be -stable material mainly because of the > diffstat. Given the security implications, I would still rather have my > patch merged first so it can easily be back-ported to -stable and distro > kernels easily, and then have your patch on top when it gets properly > reviewed. Especially since your patch looks like it's doing other > not strictly related stuffs like these: I don't agree that your patch is stable material since it is not obviously correct (it potentially changes values written to hw), hasn't been tested and doesn't qualify as a "real bug that impacts people". To fix the security concerns you expressed, you could have equally removed the DRM_DEBUG_KMS(). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
