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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:40:06 -0700 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de> Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Reported regressions for 4.7 as of Sunday, 2016-06-19 On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis > <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote: >> Description: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference […] qla24xx_process_response_queue+0x49/0x4b0 [qla2xxx] >> Report: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120201 >> Latest status: n/a >> Date rep/stat: 2016-06-14 / n/a >> Notes: poked bugzilla, a bit unsure how to proceed > > We have two bug reports against 4.5.5 - 4.5.7 of this as well. So > whatever commit caused this in 4.7 seems to have been pulled into the > 4.5.y stable tree. I suspect it is in the 4.6.y stable tree as well, > but we don't have that pushed out yet. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348342 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346753 That seems pretty unambiguous - 4.5.5 is fine, and 4.5.6 is bad. So unless it's specific to whatever patches RH is carrying around, we should be able to just look at the scsi-related stable tree patches in that region. That seems simple enough. But theres' really only two (trivial) patches in there: - scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target_state (f05795d3d771f30a7bdc3a138bf714b06d42aa95 upstream) - Revert "scsi: fix soft lockup in scsi_remove_target() on module removal" (305c2e71b3d733ec065cb716c76af7d554bd5571 upstream) as far as I can tell. And neither of them looks very likely, but what do I know. Adding Martin Petersen and Johannes Thumshirn to the participants just in case they go "Ahh.." Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists