From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807A8C04AAA for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 08:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52520205C9 for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 08:41:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1557132109; bh=t3JV6XuISHMHUjZFjImCY7von2HXibLddJsj/N80ELY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=OQToDA4zHXbAUp049a77EHlw8z+tztIggQei2P/cFHchf0bW1zvZvH3z1teNsWNQg Qm7J40TEHqXai3U5R3HdUHhHZs0z3ta7nUsXLWTuwnViRDnp0YfXfSzMucZ305usC3 2oOruZ8Yx2fiZRhmeN9KJkHHkLNApPt7h2ioUGT4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726094AbfEFIls (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2019 04:41:48 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59896 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725851AbfEFIls (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2019 04:41:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35296205C9; Mon, 6 May 2019 08:41:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1557132107; bh=t3JV6XuISHMHUjZFjImCY7von2HXibLddJsj/N80ELY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EnR3HkGj5NoW8A/kUS6qQc9HxzmvFgkP2TUGudGjdOCG+LT1cGPoyzPf2zoBnoJgC R5DGhgQeO1wpqf0J3v3ypPdtNqOuoCPVwuoHZPccr0mXXl80NQ6w3Z655zl7esKT0c rDYTTtWrrBICLEd5/zr47pXYKXaTv0G2l0yF/g/U= Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 10:41:45 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Paul Gortmaker , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Erik Schmauss Subject: Re: Possible mis-backport of 4abb951b in 4.19.35 ("ACPICA: AML interpreter: add region addresses...") Message-ID: <20190506084145.GA23991@kroah.com> References: <20190505194448.GA2649@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190505194448.GA2649@windriver.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > I noticed 4.19.35 got a backport of mainline 4abb951b, but it appears to > be a duplicate backport that landed in the wrong function. We can see > this in the stable-queue repo: > > stable-queue$ find . -name '*acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addr*' |grep 4.19 > ./releases/4.19.6/acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in-global-list-during-initialization.patch > ./releases/4.19.3/revert-acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in.patch > ./releases/4.19.35/acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in-global-list-during-initialization.patch > ./releases/4.19.2/acpica-aml-interpreter-add-region-addresses-in-global-list-during-initialization.patch > > So it was added to 4.19.2, reverted in .3, re-added in .6, and then > finally patched into a similar looking but wrong function in .35 > > If we diff the .6 and .35 versions, we see the function difference: > > -@@ -417,6 +417,10 @@ acpi_ds_eval_region_operands(struct acpi > +@@ -523,6 +523,10 @@ acpi_ds_eval_table_region_operands(struc > > I don't know what the history is/was around the 2/3/6 churn, but the > re-addition in 4.19.35 to a different function sure looks wrong. > > The commit adds a call "status = acpi_ut_add_address_range(..." and if > we check mainline, there is only one in that file, but in 4.19.35+ there > now are two calls - since the two functions had similar context and > comments, it isn't hard to see how patch could/would apply it a 2nd time > in the wrong place. > > I didn't check if any of the other currently maintained linux-stable > versions also had this possible issue. > Ugh, Rafael, did I mess this up again? Can you check to see if I need to fix this somehow? thanks, greg k-h