linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] ice: Error setting promisc mode on VSI 6 (rc=-17) @ 5.18.x

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <61698d9d-088d-a878-2b23-f5423045c00e@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:07:05 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>,
        Jaroslav Pulchart <jaroslav.pulchart@...ddata.com>,
        "Siwik, Grzegorz" <grzegorz.siwik@...el.com>,
        "Kitszel, Przemyslaw" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc:     "regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] ice: Error setting promisc mode on VSI 6
 (rc=-17) @ 5.18.x

On 17.08.22 17:59, Tony Nguyen wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 2:08 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 05.07.22 15:51, Wilczynski, Michal wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding Grzegorz Siwik,  since he is working on similar issue and already
>>> has a patch that is being tested/reviewed internally at the moment.
>>>
>>> He can you a send patch tomorrow so you can test if it also fixes your
>>> problem.
>>
>> Tony, Jesse, I have to wonder: why is it taken so long to get this
>> regression fixed? The regression was reported 69 days ago and the first
>> patches to fix this went out 40 days ago. That's far from ideal.
> 
> Our validation found issues when testing the original fix which caused
> the delays as the new issues were being worked out.

Yeah, that happens, still I wish it wouldn't taken *that* much longer
then what's outlined in the docs.

Side note: this and a similar issue I had today made me wonder if we
need a tag to make "this is a regression fix" more obvious to reviewers
and maintainers. But I guess that overblown; should be enough if
developers make it obvious in their cover letter or description that
this fixes a regression.

>> Reminder: this regression ideally should have been fixed within two
>> weeks after the report, as explained here:
>> https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html
>>
>> FWIW, in case anyone wonders: the latest patch-series to fix this can be
>> found here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/intel-wired-lan/1660310750-290943-1-git-send-email-grzegorz.siwik@intel.com/
> 
> I was going to point you to the newest patches, but you located them.
> Our validation finished testing them yesterday so the pull request for
> these will be going out to netdev today.

Great, many thx.

Ciao, Thorsten