On Tue, 7 May 2024 09:14:15 +0300 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/6/24 15:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 6 May 2024 08:09:27 +0300 > > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 > >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Fix the available times table sorting in iio-gts-helpers > >>>> > >>>> This series contains a fix and test for the sorting of the available times in > >>>> IIO-gts helpers. Fix was originally developed and posted by Chenyuan Yang. > >>>> > >>>> Revision history: > >>>> v1 => v2: > >>>> - Fix the sender for patch 1/2 (Sic!) > >>>> - Fix Co-Developed-by tag (drop this from Chenyuan who > >>>> is the original author) > >>>> - Fix the From: tag as instructed in: > >>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > >>> > >>> Am I right in thinking this doesn't matter for existing drivers? > >> > >> I think this is right. Only couple of in-tree drivers are using these > >> helpers for now, and all of them sorted the tables already in driver. > >> > >>> As such not high priority for back porting? > >> > >> The bug is pretty nasty as it causes invalid memory accesses. Hence I'd > >> like to see this landing in the longterm kernels. It seems to me the GTS > >> helpers got merged in 6.4, so getting the fix backported to 6.6 might > >> make sense. > >> > >>> I'll assume that and queue it up for 6.11. If someone shouts I can pull the fix > >>> forwards, but then we have the mess of chasing the testing in later. > >> > >> I am sorry Jonathan but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pulling fix > >> forward", or what is the "mess of chasing the testing in later" :) > > > > Hmm. That was an odd choice of words :) I just meant that I could send > > the fix in the first set of fixes after 6.10-rc1 rather than waiting for 6.11. > > Oh, right :) > > > For now I'll leave it queued for 6.11 on the basis there are a lot of ways > > a driver writer can cause similar out of bounds accesses and they should > > notice it not working during testing. So it 'should' not be a problem to > > not rush this in. > > > > I guess this means the 6.10 won't have the fix? I believe this is fine - > assuming the 6.10 is not going to be an LTS. Thanks for taking care of > this! :) It may well get backported anyway, but after 6.11 merge window. J > > Yours, > -- Matti > >
