[Intel-wired-lan] [4.14] Security fixes (blktrace, i40e)

[Intel-wired-lan] [4.14] Security fixes (blktrace, i40e)

[Ben Hutchings]

Here are backports of some fixes to the 4.14 stable branch.

I tested the blktrace fix with the script referenced in the commit
message.

I wasn't able to test the i40e changes (no hardware and no reproducer
available).

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer                         Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/                 Dale House, 35 Dale Street
                                     Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: security-4.14.mbox
Type: application/mbox
Size: 19805 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20201107/daf3e7dc/attachment-0001.mbox>

[Intel-wired-lan] [4.14] Security fixes (blktrace, i40e)

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:17:42AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Here are backports of some fixes to the 4.14 stable branch.
> 
> I tested the blktrace fix with the script referenced in the commit
> message.
> 
> I wasn't able to test the i40e changes (no hardware and no reproducer
> available).

Thanks for all of these, now queued up.

greg k-h

[Intel-wired-lan] [4.14] Security fixes (blktrace, i40e)

[Luis Chamberlain]

I'd like some more time for this, to review on older kernels. Don't think
it's the best yet

On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 9:27 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:17:42AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Here are backports of some fixes to the 4.14 stable branch.
> >
> > I tested the blktrace fix with the script referenced in the commit
> > message.
> >
> > I wasn't able to test the i40e changes (no hardware and no reproducer
> > available).
>
> Thanks for all of these, now queued up.
>
> greg k-h
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20201108/c9479992/attachment.html>

[Intel-wired-lan] [4.14] Security fixes (blktrace, i40e)

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 03:04:14AM -0600, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> I'd like some more time for this, to review on older kernels. Don't think
> it's the best yet

What is "this" and what is "the best yet"?  Which patch(s) here are you
referring to in your context-less top-post?  :)

thanks,

gre gk-h

[Intel-wired-lan] [4.14] Security fixes (blktrace, i40e)

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 10:12:14AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 03:04:14AM -0600, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > I'd like some more time for this, to review on older kernels. Don't think
> > it's the best yet
> 
> What is "this" and what is "the best yet"?  Which patch(s) here are you
> referring to in your context-less top-post?  :)

Sorry, I had to send the email as I did as I was not able to access a
computer to properly reply on time (local hurricane cut power off and
internet for a while), and in proper form, and so I figured it would be
more prudent to request to *yield* merging until I do proper review.

Given I am replying to patches which I authored I figured you could
at least infer the email was about blktrace... so you are really
exagerating contextless comment here.

Anyway, you can carry on with the fix for blktrace to be merged,
the concerne would be if you decide to backport the other important
fix "block: revert back to synchronous request_queue removal".

That is, do not merge that loosely, even if you don't see any issues.
This requires a bit more work to backport.

  Luis