netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000e: Do not wake up the system via WOL if device wakeup is disabled

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: <20200526033448.GA8838@chenyu-office.sh.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 11:34:48 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Stable@...r.kernel.org, Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000e: Do not wake up the system via WOL if device
 wakeup is disabled

Hi Sasha,
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:23:55AM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi
> 
> [This is an automated email]
> 
> This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag
> fixing commit: bc7f75fa9788 ("[E1000E]: New pci-express e1000 driver (currently for ICH9 devices only)").
> 
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.6.14, v5.4.42, v4.19.124, v4.14.181, v4.9.224, v4.4.224.
> 
> v5.6.14: Build OK!
> v5.4.42: Build OK!
> v4.19.124: Build OK!
> v4.14.181: Build OK!
> v4.9.224: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     c8744f44aeae ("e1000e: Add Support for CannonLake")
> 
> v4.4.224: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt")
>     18dd23920703 ("e1000e: use BIT() macro for bit defines")
>     74f31299a41e ("e1000e: Increase PHY PLL clock gate timing")
>     c8744f44aeae ("e1000e: Add Support for CannonLake")
>     f3ed935de059 ("e1000e: initial support for i219-LM (3)")
> 
> 
> NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.
> 
> How should we proceed with this patch?
> 
We could discard the change for v4.9 and v4.4 IMO, as their impact should be
minor.

Thanks,
Chenyu
> -- 
> Thanks
> Sasha