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]
Date:   Tue, 07 Feb 2017 09:02:51 -0800
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Sathya Prakash Veerichetty <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...ck-us.net, Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey2805@...il.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Chaitra Basappa <chaitra.basappa@...adcom.com>,
        Suganath Prabu Subramani 
        <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>,
        Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 141/319] scsi: mpt3sas: Fix secure erase premature
 termination

On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 07:59 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:38:48PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-02-06 at 23:26 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> (...)
> > > We don't have the referenced commit above in 3.10 so we should be
> > > safe. Additionally I checked that neither 4.4 nor 3.12 have them 
> > > either, so that makes me feel confident that we can skip it in 
> > > 3.10 as well.
> > 
> > The original was also racy with respect to multiple commands, so 
> > the above fixed the race as well.
> 
> OK so I tried to backport it to 3.10. I dropped a few parts which 
> were addressing this one marked for stable 4.4+ :
>     7ff723a ("scsi: mpt3sas: Unblock device after controller reset")
> 
> And I got the attached patch. All I know is that it builds. I'd 
> appreciate it if someone could confirm its validity, in which case
> I'll add it.

The two patches apply without fuzz to your tree and the combination is
a far better bug fix than the original regardless of whether 7ff723a
exists in your tree or not.  By messing with the patches all you do is
add the potential for introducing new bugs for no benefit, so why take
risk for no upside?

James

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ