linux-kernel - Re: [patch 25/45] SCSI: sg: fix races during device removal

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:18:10 -0400
From:	Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	chrisw@...s-sol.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	jmforbes@...uxtx.org, zwane@....linux.org.uk, tytso@....edu,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, davej@...hat.com, chuckw@...ntumlinux.com,
	reviews@...cw.f00f.org, mkrufky@...uxtv.org, cebbert@...hat.com,
	cavokz@...il.com, w@....eu, rbranco@...checkpoint.com,
	jake@....net, eteo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, dgilbert@...erlog.com
Subject: Re: [patch 25/45] SCSI: sg: fix races during device removal

FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:15:33 -0700
> Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> * Linus Torvalds (torvalds@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I think we could wait a bit to see if any issues turn up in 2.6.30
>>>> testing.  I think it should go in eventually, though.
>>>>         
>>> Sure, that sounds sane. But right now it has very little extra testing, so 
>>> wait with putting it into -stable at _least_ until after -rc1 release or 
>>> something?
>>>       
>> I'll drop it (meaning the three).  James can you resend after they've
>> withstood the test of time?
>>     
>
> I really want to push the patches as soon as possible. The bug that
> the 27/45 patch fixes has been for two months and I saw bug reports
> about it again and again:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123841463709919&w=2
>
>   
My two patches (25/45 and 26/45) fix very old problems, so there is no
rush to get them into -stable for their own sake.  However, Fujita's
patch (27/45) looks like it depends on my large patch (25/45), and it
fixes a regression present in 2.6.28 and 2.6.29.  So we have to weigh
the need to fix a regression that affects multiple people against the
chance of introducing new regressions.  Waiting until after 2.6.30-rc1
sounds reasonable to me, although I am not one of the people affected by
the regression fixed by Fujita's patch (since I am still using 2.6.27
-stable).

Another thing to consider is whether these patches should be included in
2.6.27 -stable.  Fujita's patch (27/45) shouldn't be necessary since
2.6.27 doesn't have the regression.  Omitting that patch removes the
dependency on my large patch (25/45), so we could question whether any
of these three patches should be included in 2.6.27.  As Linus points
out, my large patch is way above the official size limit for -stable,
but on the other hand, perhaps we could assume that "good enough for
2.6.28.x and 2.6.29.x" implies "good enough for 2.6.27.x".

Finally, I should point out that the effectiveness of "[patch 26/45]
SCSI: sg: fix races with ioctl(SG_IO)" depends on the changes to
sg_rq_end_io() made by "[patch 25/45] SCSI: sg: fix races during device
removal", so the smaller patch 26/45 should not be applied by itself
without the large patch 25/45.

Tony Battersby
Cybernetics

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/