linux-kernel - Re: [01/38] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric

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]

Message-ID: <20111011195611.GA2956@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:56:11 -0600
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Jon Mason <mason@...i.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [01/38] PCI: Set PCI-E Max Payload Size on fabric

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 01:47:47PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 
> >> It's not obvious that this fits the criteria for -stable
> >> (Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt).
> >>
> >> For example, I can't tell what real problem this fixes.
> >
> > Yeah, it's not obvious, but I have had a lot of reports that 3.0 does
> > not work on some systems without this set of patches.  Now figuring out
> > of those same systems ever worked at all is getting to be quite
> > difficult as I don't have access to the hardware, and the people that do
> > aren't responding to test requests.  But from what I gather, 2.6.32 did
> > work on these boxes, so it is a regression somehow, but I am not
> > positive of this.
> 
> I'd like to know more about this regression.

It shows up as an oops that prevents the machine from booting.

> > Now I'm very open to pushback, and if people really don't want these in
> > (i.e. the PCI maintainer(s) say no), then I'll drop them and work with
> > the distros to get them into their trees so that their customers's
> > systems will work properly.
> 
> If distros want these patches, does that mean they have bug reports?
> URLs to them would be helpful.

All of the ones I have are "private" at the moment due to the hardware
and product being tested by the users, sorry.

I really wish that some of the people who had this problem would post
publically, and I guess we could just say, because they aren't being
public about it, it shouldn't go into a stable tree.  And I don't have a
problem with that.

> I just haven't seen any concrete information that says -stable will be
> better off if it includes these patches.  We've tripped over enough
> problems upstream that I'm concerned they might make things worse
> rather than better.

Even though it is disabled by default?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/