Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 009/190] Revert "media: s5p-mfc: Fix a reference count leak" | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> | Date | Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:17:51 +0200 |
| |
On 23/04/2021 10:10, Hans Verkuil wrote: > 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.
It won't be that easy because sometimes the error handling is via goto (like in other patches here) but anyway I don't mind keeping the original commits.
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |