linux-kernel - Re: [ 105/175] CIFS: Respect negotiated MaxMpxCount

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20120401095539.31323c95@corrin.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:55:39 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...ba.org>
To:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ 105/175] CIFS: Respect negotiated MaxMpxCount

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 02:26:58 -0500
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...ba.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:50:10 -0700
> > Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> 3.3-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure it's a good idea to put this patch into any stable release
> > just yet. I think it's a correct and necessary fix, but it has some
> > potential to cause regressions too (or uncover other preexisting
> > problems with this code). Might it be best to wait until we have some
> > more experience with this before we push it into stable?
> 
> Delaying it a little is probably ok, but weigh that against the
> frequency/severity
> of the problem that Pavel's fix addresses:  ie sequential writes to some
> versions of Windows 7 and Windows Vista can fail partway
> through large file copy (which also causes those servers
> to become unresponsive to subsequent connection requests
> as well) so the fix does address a hot problem.
> 
> 
> 

I'm not disputing whether this patch is correct. It's clearly a bug
that cifs.ko has never respected this value, and it's quite problematic
with certain servers.

The problem is that we don't have any confirmation that:

a) this fixes any of the problems that we think it will

b) this doesn't introduce any regressions

The request slot allocation code is quite fiddly and fragile, and I
think the potential for "b" is somewhat high. I'd feel more comfortable
if we waited until we have more experience with this patch before
merging it into stable.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...ba.org>
--
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/