linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] 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: <bf85a3a04dd0db5e02f27d810b8d93f9@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 04 Apr 2016 11:39:42 +0200
From:	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
To:	James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"Ewan D. Milne" <emilne@...hat.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to
 scsi_target_state

On 2016-04-02 18:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 14:53 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target_state to avoid
>> running
>> into the BUG_ON() in scsi_target_reap().
>> 
>> This intermediate state is only valid in the path from
>> scsi_remove_target() to
>> scsi_target_destroy() indicating this target is going to be removed.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
>> Fixes: 40998193560dab6c3ce8d25f4fa58a23e252ef38
> 
> The code and ordering is fine with me, so you can add
> 
> Reviewed-by: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> However, I'd really appreciate it if the description of what was going
> on was clearer for a non-SUSE distro maintainer.  What we're doing is
> applying a more comprehensive fix for a previously hack fixed problem
> and then reverting the hack.  I think message 1 should say "this
> refixes the problem introduced by commit X in a more comprehensive way"
> 
> and message 2 "Now that we've done a more comprehensive fix with the
> intermediate target state in patch Y, we can remove the previous hack"
> 
> James

OK, I'll try my very best. Thanks for the review.