linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 08/56] ath10k: fix rfc1042 header retrieval in QCA4019 with eth decap mode

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: <20180705162010.GA18499@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:20:10 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc:     Sriram R <srirrama@...eaurora.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 08/56] ath10k: fix rfc1042 header retrieval in
 QCA4019 with eth decap mode

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:42:44PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 18:16 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 04:49:57PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 17:22 +0530, Sriram R wrote:
> > > > Hi Ben,
> > > > 
> > > > On 2018-06-04 23:22, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 08:48 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me 
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@....qualcomm.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > commit 2f38c3c01de945234d23dd163e3528ccb413066d upstream.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Chipset from QCA99X0 onwards (QCA99X0, QCA9984, QCA4019 & future)
> > > > > > rx_hdr_status is not padded to align in 4-byte boundary. Define a
> > > > > > new hw_params field to handle different alignment behaviour between
> > > > > > different hw. This patch fixes improper retrieval of rfc1042 header
> > > > > > with QCA4019. This patch along with "ath10k: Properly remove padding
> > > > > > from the start of rx payload" will fix traffic failure in ethernet
> > > > > > decap mode for QCA4019.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@....qualcomm.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sriram R <srirrama@...eaurora.org>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm curious as to why this backport doesn't include the change to
> > > > > ath10k_htt_rx_h_find_rfc1042().  I understand that the addition of the
> > > > > new field is a dependency for the following patch, but shouldn't the
> > > > > fix included in the upstream commit also be applied to 4.4?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >    Our main intention with this patchset [1] was to provide fix for 
> > > > replay detection security issue seen in ath10k driver which needed to be 
> > > > in the stable releases.
> > > > 
> > > > And, as per stable tree guidelines we wanted the patchset to have only 
> > > > one and this important fix .
> > > 
> > > OK, I think the problem here is that the rules say "must" when what's
> > > really meant is "should".  So the rule "It must fix only one thing."
> > > really means that commits that each make a single logical change are
> > > strongly preferred.
> > > 
> > > It does not mean that upstream commits should be trimmed down to
> > > conform to this.  Greg generally considers it more important to avoid
> > > changes to the upstream commit, where possible.  Right, Greg?
> > > 
> > > And speaking only for myself, I particularly dislike stable backports
> > > that are significantly different from the original upstream commit but
> > > don't mention this difference in the commit message.
> > 
> > I _STRONGLY_ dislike backports that are different than what is in
> > Linus's tree and normally I catch it when someone tries to do that.  I
> > missed this one here, and that's not ok on my part for missing that, and
> > for the authors part in doing that :(
> > 
> > So, what to do here, should I revert this series and take a fixed-up
> > one?  What exactly is the stable tree now missing because of this
> > mistake?
> 
> If you apply the attached patch, that should complete the backporting
> of commit 2f38c3c01de9.  I'm not able to test the driver but the change
> looks reasonable and it builds OK.

Looks good, thanks for this, now queued up.

greg k-h