drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c | 7 +++++-- drivers/iio/test/iio-test-gts.c | 8 +++++--- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
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 --- Chenyuan Yang (1): iio: Fix the sorting functionality in iio_gts_build_avail_time_table Matti Vaittinen (1): iio: test: gts: test available times and gains sorting Chenyuan Yang (1): iio: Fix the sorting functionality in iio_gts_build_avail_time_table Matti Vaittinen (1): iio: test: gts: test available times and gains sorting drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c | 7 +++++-- drivers/iio/test/iio-test-gts.c | 8 +++++--- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) base-commit: 4cece764965020c22cff7665b18a012006359095 -- 2.44.0 -- Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC Kiviharjunlenkki 1E 90220 OULU FINLAND ~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~ Simon says - in Latin please. ~~~ "non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit ~~~ Thanks to Simon Glass for the translation =]
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> 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? As such not high priority for back porting? 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. Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for 0-day to poke at it. Thanks, Jonathan > > --- > > Chenyuan Yang (1): > iio: Fix the sorting functionality in iio_gts_build_avail_time_table > > Matti Vaittinen (1): > iio: test: gts: test available times and gains sorting > > > Chenyuan Yang (1): > iio: Fix the sorting functionality in iio_gts_build_avail_time_table > > Matti Vaittinen (1): > iio: test: gts: test available times and gains sorting > > drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c | 7 +++++-- > drivers/iio/test/iio-test-gts.c | 8 +++++--- > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 4cece764965020c22cff7665b18a012006359095
On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> 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" :) > Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for 0-day > to poke at it. Thanks! Appreciate your work as always! Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
On Mon, 6 May 2024 08:09:27 +0300 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 > > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> 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. 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. J > > > Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for 0-day > > to poke at it. > > Thanks! Appreciate your work as always! > > Yours, > -- Matti >
On 5/6/24 15:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 6 May 2024 08:09:27 +0300 > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> 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! ~~
On Tue, 7 May 2024 09:14:15 +0300 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/6/24 15:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 6 May 2024 08:09:27 +0300 > > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 > >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> 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 > >
On 5/9/24 15:15, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 7 May 2024 09:14:15 +0300 > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/6/24 15:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 May 2024 08:09:27 +0300 >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/5/24 20:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:44:26 +0300 >>>>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> 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. This sounds good. Thanks for clarifying! Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.