Re: [PATCH 0/1] software node: Use-after-free fix in drivers/base/swnode.c

[Mike Isely]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:59:56PM -0600, Mike Isely wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 01:19:21PM -0600, mike.isely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > This was detected in kernel 6.12, verified also in kernel 6.6.  Visual
> > > > inspection in 6.19.3 source (the latest as of right now) shows the
> > > 
> > > The latest is v7.0-rc1 as of time of the topic message.
> > 
> > I actually meant the latest release.  Guess I should have checked the 
> > latest release candidate on the off-chance that it might have been 
> > addressed.
> 
> It is probably not, but the idea to check against latest tag in the vanilla
> repository. v6.19.3 is not even vanilla, it's stable kernel.

I tend to stick with the latest kernel that is NOT a release candidate 
when building random things here regardless of the term used and that's 
still 6.19.3.  But for verifying a patch, yes I should have at least 
taken a closer look at 7.0-rc1.


> 
> > > > same issue.  The nearly trivial fix was verified in 6.12.  While this
> > > > patches against 6.19.3, IMHO this is a candidate for all LTS kernels.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the contribution, usually for a single patch there is no need
> > > in cover letter. The comment block can handle this (the place after cutter
> > > '---' line in the message with a patch).
> > 
> > Yeah, a separate cover letter is overkill, but I was just following a 
> > process here.
> 
> What process? I think we have that somewhere in the documentation that cover
> letter for a single patch is not needed...

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst in the kernel sources, or
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html

  -Mike
   isely@xxxxxxxxx