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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:35:44 -0800
From:   Sukadev Bhattiprolu <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:, Dany Madden <>,
        Lijun Pan <>,
        Rick Lindsley <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] ibmvnic: Use more consistent locking

Jakub Kicinski [] 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.

I think the locking bug fixes need the refactoring. So would it be ok to
send the refactoring (patches 2 through 4) first to net-next and when
they are merged send the the bug fixes (1, 5 and 6)? Patch 7 can be
sent to net-next later after that.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists