From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4761A19D060; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:31:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729607497; cv=none; b=CmKLtD5i5CZUDXcAYBIv0Jp2Ax8eok7BzkWob+yb4HY7hdGwIAc6gXxIyUXuIMPaievkk83EeNSjTZAzQud0acIkDZSoT4doo2i1bAuEoMw7Ocs5APyvewQgwdj98ChvO13Y4GSvQAbQgVjHUT0VDfcjD3l2F2FitOEh13kwadc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729607497; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LpgT8Yd7zrkaCPtkZnHUcp+Mj4CWRueHn/5O6SrjW3o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=BSKUcyN7TEGDqyfD1k+7hNBero27+A8plYknLgk2Otct4Jm4BlmXAowWr3fWmNZGRz3Yp/8wseHNL+Z/wYmD3J4wTytvF5syTGtICnqSHAP/LIJPMnk7iW1j8pt4IU99CwZ79W7iRPEWmoPZIrS/nIymsYhbZCgPj8+2Sduw0L4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=qq34XOCz; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=pKfWqgqh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="qq34XOCz"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="pKfWqgqh" From: Anna-Maria Behnsen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1729607494; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=I9+4TXaziuIvZZF1dq0RG29aOHytEa0AUdL0KSv7OOc=; b=qq34XOCzWRsOQx80barfal50qwKN1CTLM7/miQyL+TNGjJNulre+RySeM0Jk9+n8s6thDq h6ldicKpQp5TD/ccuYu4j88aqowb0flw/hifRKvYgMGKzpjvBMVyJDZ/vzDrL3tTLEibxf h071JeV5T1lI7tZF6GwVTjGkNAKdU9REjZr1WBUIicYyKajXaA9KCInNn2rJ+u9ckl6kR6 O4HeyeeBGkN/n6Ux6FOpGOEC4HXUJPs9upf8MnFiOMwiTlFHB43UxKyTTIzzqTeosp4B9p ZPfu2jeFEg59C9NVtpRvSVl5II2cudF8cTRPhHWKdBke0YbaFUUvlWxAjuG66A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1729607494; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=I9+4TXaziuIvZZF1dq0RG29aOHytEa0AUdL0KSv7OOc=; b=pKfWqgqhtCfWd2p695IUzbtSyYIbddIxypBKi87GgP5I9Tc2arlh+KUBMdNXUrI/9l2PZH fNO/zMVoeBsaIhCA== To: Pavel Machek , Thomas Gleixner , Greg KH Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Jinjie Ruan , bryan.whitehead@microchip.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org, richardcochran@gmail.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, jstultz@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:31:33 +0200 Message-ID: <87ttd45hve.fsf@somnus> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Pavel Machek writes: > Hi! > >> >> > I'm guessing we can push this into 6.12-rc and the other patch into >> >> > net-next. I'll toss it into net on Monday unless someone objects. >> >> >> >> Can you folks please at least wait until the maintainers of the code in >> >> question had a look ? >> > >> > You are literally quoting the text where I say I will wait 3 more days. >> > Unfortunately "until the maintainers respond" leads to waiting forever >> > 50% of the time, and even when we cap at 3 working days we have 300 >> > patches in the queue (292 right now, and I already spent 2 hours >> > reviewing today). Hope you understand. >> >> I understand very well, but _I_ spent the time to review the earlier >> variants of these patches and to debate with the submitter up to rev >> 5. >> >> Now you go and apply a patch to a subsystem you do not even maintain just >> because I did not have the bandwidth to look at it within the time >> limit you defined? Seriously? >> >> This problem is there for years, so a few days +/- are absolutely not >> relevant. >> >> > Sorry if we applied too early, please review, I'll revert if it's no >> > good. > > It is no good :-( and it is now in stable. > > It needs to goto out in the error case, to permit cleanups. The check needs to be done before taking the lock. There is already a patch around which solves it: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241018100748.706462-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com/ Thanks, Anna-Maria