linux-kernel - Re: Reported regressions for 4.7 as of Sunday, 2016-06-19

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: <CA+55aFyyKjupjdd4tC82VEnZwb3AyEGJBVCJzdyvfgeUFGVfLw@mail.gmail.com>
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