From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCBBB17C6B; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712248343; cv=none; b=ceNWgWQ1oZnIBccv3/l1E00UpWXqS0b4iovOkIo6Kibp4zv5PyZvo2WHBGSG7QZwCIMqQcHMNRhD1qZyA/zv2ha5WblQ9C7MaxciXysGjSXxWIG92P6HI+doVLKJbRjLBLxNCuDTFbh0+tuEjqgjvTCpomMYFDWJxt/7ELwkZE0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712248343; c=relaxed/simple; bh=omsADSD+7vTDb6nfcbOkcYvRC7o4+SL5HeuxZtkQasE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=kylsv/4NhFLGbzYenMj0TZvp0ZEnxyqq5+6BHfzDaWKp7ZSncmdf7T38TvHbvDVww5vnTsZo3OTBG/JTnEQpGnD+cA6333i+0gjk+BrBYIOrkrtBcUIBNsAxi2f7TbqoUU/wHAp7/0ZOohN+V2r/2YUwd/lid9IBPQvkDhbVlqA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=Il7OOCpQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="Il7OOCpQ" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4V9Rwj1DLDzlgTGW; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:32:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:references:content-language:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1712248340; x=1714840341; bh=jIEHPy1+GaDZbSl3tHxpaKQA QzdIRwfb9d10+zg+Mos=; b=Il7OOCpQQqzhgZerUlqESO9Th4HkwREkAuFqmg42 KmKHsz3Z1TiytWy/WMrnpRdbrDOs3IDlxv+oBvPyxp5NyUgshZGjti6RxpdkWV4D fTztFHn+uMwyXWukOd3nskqWVU5SwagMLrBmuZOtOAewxnKKyiqTnGKCXs7O7f/3 2GzUT309IgBskbTehoYEFPebczkyGjHKh2lE5e6y/Sq+y1xOb1wgPvlM4wcd3g1o 0OU+ZLPcyoQXY4EOY1wv+d82dK0PWyMNXEwi43jDrI5y5hzzqDzJ7hHlUwvjHnuN LvnrsFWD75TE1UwLKtD0bmUIfq/ldegUQHYQYqvmPlpVOg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id oTn5h7mijZyR; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:32:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.96.154.173] (unknown [104.132.1.77]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4V9Rwg2zFjzlgTHp; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:32:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:32:17 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Broken Domain Validation in 6.1.84+ Content-Language: en-US To: John David Anglin , linux-parisc Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org References: From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4/4/24 09:20, John David Anglin wrote: > [=C2=A0=C2=A0 12.845277] scsi target2:0:0: Beginning Domain Validation > [=C2=A0=C2=A0 12.845441] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [=C2=A0=C2=A0 12.845485] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 711 at drivers/scsi/scsi_= lib.c:214=20 > scsi_execute_cmd+0x74/0x258 [scsi_mod] Thank you for having reported this. So that's the following warning: else if (WARN_ON_ONCE(args->sense && args->sense_len !=3D SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE)) return -EINVAL; Can you please help with verifying whether this kernel warning is only triggered by the 6.1 stable kernel series or whether it is also triggered by a vanilla kernel, e.g. kernel v6.8? That will tell us whether we need to review the upstream changes or the backports on the v6.1 branch. Thanks, Bart.