Re: [PATCH 0/1] software node: Use-after-free fix in drivers/base/swnode.c

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 01:48:04PM -0600, Mike Isely wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:59:56PM -0600, Mike Isely wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 01:19:21PM -0600, mike.isely@cobaltdigital.com wrote:

...

> > > > > This was detected in kernel 6.12, verified also in kernel 6.6.  Visual
> > > > > inspection in 6.19.3 source (the latest as of right now) shows the
> > > > 
> > > > The latest is v7.0-rc1 as of time of the topic message.
> > > 
> > > I actually meant the latest release.  Guess I should have checked the 
> > > latest release candidate on the off-chance that it might have been 
> > > addressed.
> > 
> > It is probably not, but the idea to check against latest tag in the vanilla
> > repository. v6.19.3 is not even vanilla, it's stable kernel.
> 
> I tend to stick with the latest kernel that is NOT a release candidate 
> when building random things here regardless of the term used and that's 
> still 6.19.3.  But for verifying a patch, yes I should have at least 
> taken a closer look at 7.0-rc1.

The logical requirement for a new contribution is to build changes against
current or next cycle. Hence only two kernels have interest to us:

- latest tag in vanilla (v7.0-rc1 as of today)
- latest tag in Linux Next (whatever day it is)

> > > > > same issue.  The nearly trivial fix was verified in 6.12.  While this
> > > > > patches against 6.19.3, IMHO this is a candidate for all LTS kernels.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the contribution, usually for a single patch there is no need
> > > > in cover letter. The comment block can handle this (the place after cutter
> > > > '---' line in the message with a patch).
> > > 
> > > Yeah, a separate cover letter is overkill, but I was just following a 
> > > process here.
> > 
> > What process? I think we have that somewhere in the documentation that cover
> > letter for a single patch is not needed...
> 
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst in the kernel sources, or
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html

Yes, it maybe not so clear but it actually tells you to choose between two:
- vanilla (latest tag), OR
- dedicated tree "for-next" (most use this, but some use other name for
  the branch for the next cycle).


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko