linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i40e: fix the wrong PTP frequency calculation

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: <9e1b824f-04d3-4acb-66d3-a5f90afbad0e@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:59:41 -0700
From:   Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To:     Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:     <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i40e: fix the wrong PTP frequency calculation

On 9/25/2023 12:55 AM, Yajun Deng wrote:
> 
> On 2023/6/28 04:20, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
>> On 6/26/2023 7:26 PM, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>> The new adjustment should be based on the base frequency, not the
>>> I40E_PTP_40GB_INCVAL in i40e_ptp_adjfine().
>>>
>>> This issue was introduced in commit 3626a690b717 ("i40e: use
>>> mul_u64_u64_div_u64 for PTP frequency calculation"), and was fixed in
>>> commit 1060707e3809 ("ptp: introduce helpers to adjust by scaled
>>> parts per million"). However the latter is a new feature and hasn't been
>>> backported to the stable releases.
>>>
>>> This issue affects both v6.0 and v6.1 versions, and the v6.1 version is
>>> an LTS version.
>>>

...

>>
>> Thanks for finding and fixing this mistake. I think its the simplest fix
>> to get into the stable kernel that are broken, since taking the
>> adjust_by_scaled_ppm version would require additional patches.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
>>
> Kindly ping...

As this patch looks to be for stable, you need to follow the process for 
that. I believe your situation would fall into option 3:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html#option-3

Thanks,
Tony