Re: [PATCH 074/190] Revert "drm/gma500: fix memory disclosures due to uninitialized bytes"

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 03:43:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 07:51:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:06 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This reverts commit ec3b7b6eb8c90b52f61adff11b6db7a8db34de19.
> > >
> > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
> > > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
> > > malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
> > > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> > > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> > > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > >
> > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> > > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> > > they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> > > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > > codebase.
> > >
> > > Cc: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: https
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > gma500 is dead enough I'm not going to spend a single cycle thinking
> > whether this fixes anything or not and hence whether the revert is ok
> > or not.
> 
> Sounds good to me, I'll keep the reverts.

I've re-reviewed this one, and it seems sane, so I'll drop the revert.

thanks,

greg k-h