Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 009/190] Revert "media: s5p-mfc: Fix a reference count leak" | From | Hans Verkuil <> | Date | Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:10:19 +0200 |
| |
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 >
| |