lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 009/190] Revert "media: s5p-mfc: Fix a reference count leak"
    From
    Date
    On 23/04/2021 10:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
    > Em Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:10:32 +0200
    > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:
    >
    >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:04:27AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
    >>> On 21/04/2021 14:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    >>>> This reverts commit 78741ce98c2e36188e2343434406b0e0bc50b0e7.
    >>>>
    >>>> Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
    >>>> faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
    >>>> malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found in a
    >>>> paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
    >>>> entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
    >>>> Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
    >>>> of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
    >>>>
    >>>> Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
    >>>> the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
    >>>> they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove this
    >>>> change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
    >>>> codebase.
    >>>>
    >>>> Cc: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@umn.edu>
    >>>> Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>
    >>>> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
    >>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    >>>> ---
    >>>> drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_pm.c | 4 +---
    >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> This looks like a good commit but should be done now in a different way
    >>> - using pm_runtime_resume_and_get(). Therefore I am fine with revert
    >>> and I can submit later better fix.
    >>
    >> Great, thanks for letting me know, I can have someone work on the
    >> "better fix" at the same time.
    >
    > IMO, it is better to keep the fix. I mean, there's no reason to
    > revert a fix that it is known to be good.
    >
    > The "better fix" patch can be produced anytime. A simple coccinelle
    > ruleset can replace patterns like:
    >
    > ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pm->device);
    > if (ret < 0) {
    > pm_runtime_put_noidle(pm->device);
    > return ret;
    > }
    >
    > and the broken pattern:
    >
    > ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pm->device);
    > if (ret < 0)
    > return ret;
    >
    > to:
    >
    > ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(pm->device);
    > if (ret < 0)
    > return ret;

    That's my preference as well.

    Hans

    >
    > Regards,
    > Mauro
    >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-04-23 10:11    [W:3.225 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site