Re: [PATCH 6.6 & 5.10] usb: typec: ucsi: validate connector number in ucsi_connector_change

[Hongbo Li]

Hi Greg,

On 2026/5/8 21:04, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 08:59:06PM +0800, Hongbo Li wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On 2026/5/8 19:03, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 05:20:26PM +0800, Hongbo Li wrote:
> > > > Commit d2d8c17ac01a ("usb: typec: ucsi: validate connector
> > > > number in ucsi_notify_common()") and commit 5a1140404cbf ("usb:
> > > > typec: ucsi: skip connector validation before init") add the bounds
> > > > check when do the connector change both in pre-init notification and
> > > > the forward notifications. But they are difficult to backport to
> > > > early stable branch such as LTS 6.6, LTS 5.10 due to many dependencies.
> > > > Instead, we choose to validate connector number in ucsi_connector_change
> > > > directly to avoid out-of-range issue.
> > >
> > > Why just these 2 branches?
> >
> > I only noticed these two branches, but in fact, there are more.
> >
> > > And what specific commits are needed exactly?  Why not just backport
> > > them all?  that will make future changes apply properly as well, making
> >
> > Commit d2d8c17ac01a ("usb: typec: ucsi: validate connector number in
> > ucsi_notify_common()") use the ucsi_notify_common helper which is introduced
> > in 584e8df58942 ("usb: typec: ucsi: extract common code for command
> > handling"). This commit refactored part of the code and involves many
> > modifications to USB ucsi controllers (such as stm32g0...), which were
> > introduced after 6.6.
>
> So just 2 commits?  that's nothing, we have taken hundreds of commits of

No. This is not an issue of the number of backport patches.

For commit 584e8df58942, it refractored the logic based on a higher 
version (higher than 6.6) which introduced new ucsi controllers 
(yoga_c630 for 6.6, yoga_c630, glink and stm32g0 for 5.10). So we should 
remove some extra code and resolve conflicts if we backport this patch 
to the target branch like the first way I mentioned.

But I looked at the modification logic of the commit d2d8c17ac01a and 
commit 5a1140404cbf, and I think it can be made simpler (like the patch 
I post), of course, this requires the maintainer to help review it.

And we need Krogerus and Rebello to take a look.

Thanks,
Hongbo

> backports in the past.  Please try to stick to what is exactly upstream,
> it is easier for everyone overall.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h