linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target

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]

Message-ID: <20160329074535.GA30098@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:45:35 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	"Ewan D. Milne" <emilne@...hat.com>
Cc:	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to
 scsi_target_state

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:42:44AM -0400, Ewan D. Milne wrote:
> This looks fine.  Do we still need 90a88d6ef (scsi: fix soft lockup in
> scsi_remove_target() on module removal) or can that be reverted now,
> since the STARGET_REMOVE state will allow the iteration to continue?

Yes, that stale pointer check is something I'd really, really prefer
not to have around in the long run.

Otherwise the patch looks like the right direction to me.