linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [64/99] Revert "iwlagn: Support new 5000 microcode."

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:45:37 +0200
From:	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, herton.krzesinski@...onical.com, gengor@...too.org,
	donald.h.fry@...el.com, wey-yi.w.guy@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [64/99] Revert "iwlagn: Support new 5000 microcode."

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:32:41PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > commit dd7a2509b3a79b290730a9c6a784bf03fedabb9a
> > Author: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> > Date:   Wed Apr 28 23:33:10 2010 -0700
> > 
> >     iwlagn: implement loading a new firmware file type
> > 
> > > This was reported by Gentoo, Arch, and Canonical developers as causing
> > > problems for their users:
> > > 	https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24302
> > This is a bug about 2.6.32.
> > 
> > > 	http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359445
> > This looks like problem when only 8.83.5 (v5) firmware is available
> > on the system, but kernel is old and support only v2 version. This
> > should be solved by providing both old 8.24.2 (v2) and new 8.83.5 (v5)
> > firmware blobs in one package.
> > 
> > > 	https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/796336
> > Also 2.6.32 case.
> 
> I took them from .32. Should I drop them?
Reverting support for v5 firmware in .32 is ok.

> > There could be reasons for this change, but I do not see them here.
> 
> Can you please clearly indicate which patches I should drop and which keep?
You already decided to drop this patch for now, good.

I can observe lot's of "Received BA when not expected" when new firmware
is used, not happen with old firmware. So this commit should be picked
from upstream:

commit bfd36103ec26599557c2bd3225a1f1c9267f8fcb
Author: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Date:   Fri Apr 29 17:51:06 2011 +0200

    iwlagn: fix "Received BA when not expected" 

However we already applied it on 2.6.35 based Fedora-14 kernel (together with
some other iwlwifi patches), and get report about regression. So I need
to figure this out. I'm going to look more at the issue, and possibly
post some backport patches, when solve problems. For now, I think we should
not do anything with iwlwifi in 2.6.35, as long nobody will report some
regression.

Stanislaw
--
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/