netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] ibmvnic: Use more consistent locking

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: <20210113044247.GA224486@us.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:42:47 -0800
From:   Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Dany Madden <drt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Lijun Pan <ljp@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] ibmvnic: Use more consistent locking

Jakub Kicinski [kuba@...nel.org] wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:14:34 -0800 Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > Use more consistent locking when reading/writing the adapter->state
> > field. This patch set fixes a race condition during ibmvnic_open()
> > where the adapter could be left in the PROBED state if a reset occurs
> > at the wrong time. This can cause networking to not come up during
> > boot and potentially require manual intervention in bringing up
> > applications that depend on the network.
> 
> Apologies for not having enough time to suggest details, but let me
> state this again - the patches which fix bugs need to go into net with
> Fixes tags, the refactoring needs to go to net-next without Fixes tags.
> If there are dependencies, patches go to net first, then within a week
> or so the reset can be posted for net-next, after net -> net-next merge.

Well, the patch set fixes a set of bugs - main one is a locking bug fixed
in patch 6. Other bugs are more minor or corner cases. Fixing the locking
bug requires some refactoring/simplifying/reordering checks so lock can be
properly acquired.

Because of the size/cleanup, should we treat it as "next" material? i.e
should I just drop the Fixes tag and resend to net-next?

Or can we ignore the size of patchset and treat it all as bug fixes?

Appreciate your input.

Thanks,

Sukadev