Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix the iio-gts-helpers available times table sorting

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>]

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
> 
>