From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755520Ab1DTRc4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:32:56 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:20133 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751366Ab1DTRcz (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:32:55 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,247,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="912336955" Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:32:52 -0700 From: Sarah Sharp To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Willy Tarreau , Dmitry Torokhov , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable-review@kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [24/28] USB: xhci - fix unsafe macro definitions Message-ID: <20110420173252.GA5343@xanatos> References: <20110419204119.285492847@clark.kroah.org> <1303264924.3464.69.camel@localhost> <20110420053925.GC16291@1wt.eu> <1303302875.3464.96.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1303302875.3464.96.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:35PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 07:39 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:02:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov > > > > > > > > commit 5a6c2f3ff039154872ce597952f8b8900ea0d732 upstream. > > > > > > > > Macro arguments used in expressions need to be enclosed in parenthesis > > > > to avoid unpleasant surprises. > > > > > > Do you know of any specific uses of these macros where the missing > > > parentheses caused 'unpleasant surprises'? > > > > In my opinion, this type of fix should be backported even if the current > > code does not appear to be at risk, otherwise a later fix in the kernel > > could cause a serious regression when backported to -stable. For instance, > > if we later have to backport this patch (cut'n'pasted) : > [...] > > I agree, but would like to know whether there is an immediate effect. No immediate breakage, AFAIK. Dmitry found the issue by inspection. Sarah Sharp