Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix the iio-gts-helpers available times table sorting

[Matti Vaittinen]

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! :)

Yours,
	-- Matti


--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~