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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:43:18 -0800
From:   Bart Van Assche <>
To:     Pavel Machek <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
        Alan Stern <>,
        James Bottomley <>,
        Woody Suwalski <>,
        Can Guo <>,
        Stanley Chu <>,
        Ming Lei <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Stan Johnson <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>, Jens Axboe <>,
        Hannes Reinecke <>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
        Sasha Levin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 06/77] scsi: scsi_transport_spi: Set RQF_PM for
 domain validation commands

On 1/13/21 3:47 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> From: Bart Van Assche <>
>> [ Upstream commit cfefd9f8240a7b9fdd96fcd54cb029870b6d8d88 ]
>> Disable runtime power management during domain validation. Since a later
>> patch removes RQF_PREEMPT, set RQF_PM for domain validation commands such
>> that these are executed in the quiesced SCSI device state.
> This and "05/77] scsi: ide: Do not set the RQF_PREEMPT flag for" do
> not fix anything AFAICT. They are in series with other patches in
> 5.10, so they may make sense there, but I don't think we need them in
> 4.19.

Agreed. Please either backport the entire series of 8 patches or do not
backport any patch from that series. Selecting a subset of the patches
of that series is dangerous. As an example, applying patch 8/8 without
applying the prior patches from that series would break SCSI domain
validation. See also



Powered by blists - more mailing lists