netdev - Re: [stable] [PATCH net-2.6/stable] tg3: Restrict phy ioctl access

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]

Date:	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:39:47 -0800
From:	"Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	"Matthew Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>,
	"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...nel.org" <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH net-2.6/stable] tg3: Restrict phy ioctl
 access

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:10:25PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:52:48 -0800
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:11:03PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: "Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:06:13 -0800
> >> 
> >> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:39:35PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 02:51:10PM -0800, Matt Carlson wrote:
> >> >> > If management firmware is present and the device is down, the firmware
> >> >> > will assume control of the phy.  If a phy access were allowed from the
> >> >> > host, it will collide with firmware phy accesses, resulting in
> >> >> > unpredictable behavior.  This patch fixes the problem by disallowing phy
> >> >> > accesses during the problematic condition.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Upstream commit ID f746a3136a61ae535c5d0b49a9418fa21edc61b5
> >> >> 
> >> >> There is no such upstream git commit id in Linus's tree.  What am I
> >> >> doing wrong here?
> >> > 
> >> > The commit is in Dave Miller's net-next-2.6 tree.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> If it wasn't appropriate for net-2.6, it absolutely it not appropriate
> >> for -stable.
> > 
> > net-2.6 was the target tree for the patch.  The stable_kernel_rules.txt
> > seemed to suggest that I could just CC stable@...nel.org with the
> > commit ID, and Greg would pull it in as the process dictates.  If that
> > isn't correct, what is the preferred way to expedite the integration of
> > a patch?
> 
> You are posting a commit ID for the net-next-2.6 tree, that's what triggered
> my response.
> 
> Unless it also went into the net-2.6 tree (in which case you should
> give Greg the net-2.6 commit ID, which is also what the commit ID must
> be in Linus's tree right now), the change is not appropriate for
> -stable submission.

So the proper thing to do here is recall the patch, submit a new patch
to net-2.6 with a CC: stabel@...nel.org in the signed-off-by section.

Would I do the exact same thing if I were posting to net-next-2.6?
(i.e. the CC line tells you I want this patch to go to net-next-2.6,
net-2.6, then Linus's tree, then stable?)  Or would you rather I posted
a completely different patchset against net-2.6?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html