On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> I've managed to split up my long patch into a series of reasonble
>>>> steps now.
>>>>
>>>> The first two are required to fix a regression from commit 41977e86c984
>>>> ("rt2x00: add support for MT7620"), the rest are just cleanups to
>>>> have a consistent state across all the register access functions.
>>>
>>> Can these all go to 4.13 or would you prefer me to push the first two
>>> 4.12? Or what?
>>
>> I think you can reasonably argue either way: the second patch does
>> fix a real bug that may or may not lead to an exploitable stack overflow
>> when CONFIG_KASAN is enabled, which would be a reason to put it
>> into 4.12. On the other hand, I have another 20 patches for similar
>> (or worse) stack overflow issues with KASAN that I'm hoping to all
>> get into 4.13 and backported into stable kernel later if necessary,
>> so we could treat this one like the others.
>>
>> The only difference between this and the others is that in rt2x00 it
>> is a regression against 4.11, while the others have all been present
>> for a long time.
>
> Having all of these in 4.12 sounds a bit excessive and splitting the set
> (the first two into 4.12 and the rest into 4.13) sounds too much work.
> So I would prefer to queue these to 4.13, if it's ok for everyone?
Ok, sounds fine. Thanks,
Arnd
