From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755537AbYJQA4A (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:56:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751145AbYJQAzw (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:55:52 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37811 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbYJQAzw (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:55:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:54:49 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: David Brownell Cc: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] gpiolib: fix oops in gpio_get_value_cansleep() Message-Id: <20081016175449.4ba7ac02.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <200810161744.34005.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200810160845.22281.david-b@pacbell.net> <20081016161718.e05864da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200810161744.34005.david-b@pacbell.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:44:33 -0700 David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 16 October 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > From: David Brownell > > > > > > We can get the following oops from gpio_get_value_cansleep() > > > when a GPIO controller doesn't provide a get() callback: > > > > We can, but do we? ;) > > I think it's unlikely without the sysfs interface. > > > > iow: is this needed in any -stable release? > > The bug has been there since 2.6.25 but nobody else seems > to have reported it. Is the general policy to fix all > oopses that *could* appear? I'd send it for 2.6.27-stable, > since that's got the sysfs hooks. And older kernels if > bug likelihood isn't a major concern. OK. 2.6.27 definitely (major distros are basing on that). As for earlier kernels: I'd say so. An oops is farily serious. Although an oops in a sysfs handler tends to be fairly tame, as the code usually doesn't hold locks or many allocated resources. Anyway - making decisions like this is why we pay stable@kernel.org the big bucks :)