linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 06/77] scsi: scsi_transport_spi: Set RQF

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: <e1fd4693-95f5-58c2-20c6-fbd96653edfe@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:43:18 -0800
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@...il.com>,
        Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Stan Johnson <userm57@...oo.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
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 <bvanassche@....org>
>>
>> [ 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
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20201209052951.16136-1-bvanassche@acm.org/

Thanks,

Bart.