On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:21:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 07:50:22AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 26. Januar 2010 05:27:31 schrieb Greg KH: > > > > Good point. But if that is considered critical enough then Dan's > > > > original patch should go to stable instead of this one. And so should > > > > the other 10+ DMA-to-stack patches in Greg's tree? > > > > > > Given the age of this bug (1999) and the fact that the devices are no > > > longer made, I don't think this is -stable worthy. > > > > That's an odd form of reasoning. As the patch touches just this driver > > it makes no difference if you don't have the hardware. If you have > > the hardware on an architecture where it matters, this is no longer > > true. > > > There are 89 files that do dma on the stack in the -rc5 kernel. No one > ever complains about it, so it can't be that serious. DMA on stack can actually cause memory corruption on cache-incoherent architectures as Oliver implies. However unlikely it may be, perhaps this should be given higher priority to fix? Thanks, Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
