> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 1:42 AM > To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wysocki, Rafael J > <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Schmauss, Erik <erik.schmauss@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Possible mis-backport of 4abb951b in 4.19.35 ("ACPICA: AML > interpreter: add region addresses...") > > On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > I noticed 4.19.35 got a backport of mainline 4abb951b, but it appears > > to be a duplicate backport that landed in the wrong function. We can > > see this in the stable-queue repo: > > > > stable-queue$ find . -name '*acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addr*' > > |grep 4.19 > > ./releases/4.19.6/acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in-globa > > l-list-during-initialization.patch > > ./releases/4.19.3/revert-acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-i > > n.patch > > ./releases/4.19.35/acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in-glob > > al-list-during-initialization.patch > > ./releases/4.19.2/acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in-globa > > l-list-during-initialization.patch > > > > So it was added to 4.19.2, reverted in .3, re-added in .6, and then > > finally patched into a similar looking but wrong function in .35 > > > > If we diff the .6 and .35 versions, we see the function difference: > > > > -@@ -417,6 +417,10 @@ acpi_ds_eval_region_operands(struct acpi > > +@@ -523,6 +523,10 @@ acpi_ds_eval_table_region_operands(struc > > > > I don't know what the history is/was around the 2/3/6 churn, but the > > re-addition in 4.19.35 to a different function sure looks wrong. > > > > The commit adds a call "status = acpi_ut_add_address_range(..." and if > > we check mainline, there is only one in that file, but in 4.19.35+ > > there now are two calls - since the two functions had similar context > > and comments, it isn't hard to see how patch could/would apply it a > > 2nd time in the wrong place. > > > > I didn't check if any of the other currently maintained linux-stable > > versions also had this possible issue. > > > Hi Greg, > Ugh, Rafael, did I mess this up again? Can you check to see if I need to fix this > somehow? It should be called in acpi_ds_eval_region_operands rather than acpi_ds_eval_table_region_operands. Please remove the call from acpi_ds_eval_table_region_operands. Thanks, Erik > > thanks, > > greg k-h
