Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-152395-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:00:30 +0000
From: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= <arve@android.com>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Serban Constantinescu <serban.constantinescu@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] binder: fix max_thread type inconsistency
Message-ID: <ZiRXHs9_Uszd7xzS@google.com>
References: <20240417191418.1341988-1-cmllamas@google.com>
 <20240417191418.1341988-5-cmllamas@google.com>
 <2024041858-unwoven-craziness-13a6@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2024041858-unwoven-craziness-13a6@gregkh>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 07:13:44PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> > The type defined for the BINDER_SET_MAX_THREADS ioctl was changed from
> > size_t to __u32 in order to avoid incompatibility issues between 32 and
> > 64-bit kernels. However, the internal types used to copy from user and
> > store the value were never updated. Use u32 to fix the inconsistency.
> > 
> > Fixes: a9350fc859ae ("staging: android: binder: fix BINDER_SET_MAX_THREADS declaration")
> > Reported-by: Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@android.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/android/binder.c          | 2 +-
> >  drivers/android/binder_internal.h | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Why does only patch 4/4 need to go into the tree now, and as a stable
> backport, but the first 3 do not?  Shouldn't this be two different
> series of patches, one 3 long, and one 1 long, to go to the different
> branches (next and linus)?

Yes, that is correct. Only patch 4/4 would need to be picked for linus
now and for stable. The others would go to next. Sorry, I was not aware
that sending them separately would be preferred.

I'll drop 4/4 patch from the series in v2. Let me know if you still need
me to send it again separately.

Thanks,
Carlos Llamas