WTF: patch "[PATCH] SUNRPC: drop pointless static qualifier in" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree?

WTF: patch "[PATCH] SUNRPC: drop pointless static qualifier in" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree?

[gregkh]

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
<stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

>From 025911a5f4e36955498ed50806ad1b02f0f76288 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 02:04:57 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] SUNRPC: drop pointless static qualifier in
 xdr_get_next_encode_buffer()

There is no need to have the '__be32 *p' variable static since new value
always be assigned before use it.

Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xdr.c b/net/sunrpc/xdr.c
index 5cfb9e0a18dc..f302c6eb8779 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/xdr.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/xdr.c
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xdr_commit_encode);
 static __be32 *xdr_get_next_encode_buffer(struct xdr_stream *xdr,
 		size_t nbytes)
 {
-	static __be32 *p;
+	__be32 *p;
 	int space_left;
 	int frag1bytes, frag2bytes;
 

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] SUNRPC: drop pointless static qualifier in" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree?

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:45:19PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree.
> 
> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I should have rewritten that changelog, Yue Hainbing's makes it just
sound like cleanup.

That variable should definitely be private to each task, the sharing
could cause real bugs.

Admittedly, I don't have actual bug reports, so you could argue this
falls under the 'No "theoretical race condition"' rule, but the
potential consequences are pretty bad and the fix very simple, so I
still think it's a good stable candidate.

--b.

> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> seen again.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> 
> From 025911a5f4e36955498ed50806ad1b02f0f76288 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 02:04:57 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] SUNRPC: drop pointless static qualifier in
>  xdr_get_next_encode_buffer()
> 
> There is no need to have the '__be32 *p' variable static since new value
> always be assigned before use it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> 
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xdr.c b/net/sunrpc/xdr.c
> index 5cfb9e0a18dc..f302c6eb8779 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xdr.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xdr.c
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xdr_commit_encode);
>  static __be32 *xdr_get_next_encode_buffer(struct xdr_stream *xdr,
>  		size_t nbytes)
>  {
> -	static __be32 *p;
> +	__be32 *p;
>  	int space_left;
>  	int frag1bytes, frag2bytes;
>  
> 

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] SUNRPC: drop pointless static qualifier in" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree?

[Sasha Levin]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:03:28PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:45:19PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.19-stable tree.
>>
>> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
>> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
>
>I should have rewritten that changelog, Yue Hainbing's makes it just
>sound like cleanup.
>
>That variable should definitely be private to each task, the sharing
>could cause real bugs.
>
>Admittedly, I don't have actual bug reports, so you could argue this
>falls under the 'No "theoretical race condition"' rule, but the
>potential consequences are pretty bad and the fix very simple, so I
>still think it's a good stable candidate.

Thanks for the explanation, I've queued it for all stable branches.

--
Thanks,
Sasha