linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 091/143] scsi: aic94xx: fix module loading

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 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]

Date:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:11:28 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 091/143] scsi: aic94xx: fix module loading

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:23:21AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:43 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me
> > know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> > 
> > commit 42caa0edabd6a0a392ec36a5f0943924e4954311 upstream.
> > 
> > The aic94xx driver is currently failing to load with errors like
> > 
> > sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename
> > '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:03.0/0000:02:00.3/0000:07:02.0/revision'
> > 
> > Because the PCI code had recently added a file named 'revision' to
> > every PCI device.  Fix this by renaming the aic94xx revision file to
> > aic_revision.  This is safe to do for us because as far as I can
> > tell, there's nothing in userspace relying on the current aic94xx
> > revision file so it can be renamed without breaking anything.
> > 
> > Fixes: 702ed3be1b1b (PCI: Create revision file in sysfs)
> 
> jejb@...vis:~/git/linux> git describe --contains 702ed3be1b1b
> v4.10-rc1~94^2~18^2~1
> 
> I suppose interface consistency is useful, but under the stable rules,
> shouldn't this only be ported as far back as the bug it fixes?

Good catch.  I added it to the 4.9 tree too :(

I'll go drop this from the 4.4 and 3.18 stable queues and queue up a
revert for 4.9.y.

thanks,

greg k-h