On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 04:49:57PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 17:22 +0530, Sriram R wrote:
Hi Ben,
On 2018-06-04 23:22, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 08:48 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
From: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan vthiagar@qti.qualcomm.com
commit 2f38c3c01de945234d23dd163e3528ccb413066d upstream.
Chipset from QCA99X0 onwards (QCA99X0, QCA9984, QCA4019 & future) rx_hdr_status is not padded to align in 4-byte boundary. Define a new hw_params field to handle different alignment behaviour between different hw. This patch fixes improper retrieval of rfc1042 header with QCA4019. This patch along with "ath10k: Properly remove padding from the start of rx payload" will fix traffic failure in ethernet decap mode for QCA4019.
Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan vthiagar@qti.qualcomm.com Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com Signed-off-by: Sriram R srirrama@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
[...]
I'm curious as to why this backport doesn't include the change to ath10k_htt_rx_h_find_rfc1042(). I understand that the addition of the new field is a dependency for the following patch, but shouldn't the fix included in the upstream commit also be applied to 4.4?
Our main intention with this patchset [1] was to provide fix for replay detection security issue seen in ath10k driver which needed to be in the stable releases.
And, as per stable tree guidelines we wanted the patchset to have only one and this important fix .
OK, I think the problem here is that the rules say "must" when what's really meant is "should". So the rule "It must fix only one thing." really means that commits that each make a single logical change are strongly preferred.
It does not mean that upstream commits should be trimmed down to conform to this. Greg generally considers it more important to avoid changes to the upstream commit, where possible. Right, Greg?
And speaking only for myself, I particularly dislike stable backports that are significantly different from the original upstream commit but don't mention this difference in the commit message.
I _STRONGLY_ dislike backports that are different than what is in Linus's tree and normally I catch it when someone tries to do that. I missed this one here, and that's not ok on my part for missing that, and for the authors part in doing that :(
So, what to do here, should I revert this series and take a fixed-up one? What exactly is the stable tree now missing because of this mistake?
thanks,
greg k-h