Re: dpt_i2o fixes for stable

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 07:58:11PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2023, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:42:00PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > I'm proposing to address the most obvious issues with dpt_i2o on stable
> > > branches.  At this stage it may be better to remove it as has been done
> > > upstream, but I'd rather limit the regression for anyone still using
> > > the hardware.
> > > 
> > > The changes are:
> > > 
> > > - "scsi: dpt_i2o: Remove broken pass-through ioctl (I2OUSERCMD)",
> > >   which closes security flaws including CVE-2023-2007.
> > > - "scsi: dpt_i2o: Do not process completions with invalid addresses",
> > >   which removes the remaining bus_to_virt() call and may slightly
> > >   improve handling of misbehaving hardware.
> > > 
> > > These changes have been compiled on all the relevant stable branches,
> > > but I don't have hardware to test on.
> > 
> > Why don't we just delete it in the stable trees as well?  If no one has
> > the hardware (otherwise the driver would not have been removed), who is
> > going to hit these issues anyway?
> > 
> 
> It's already gone from two stable trees. Would you also have it deleted 
> from users' machines, or would you have each distro separately maintain 
> out-of-tree that code which it is presently shipping, or something else?

Delete it as obviously no one actually has this hardware.  Or just leave
it alone, as obviously no one has this hardware so any changes made to
the code would not actually affect anyone.

Or am I missing something here?

thanks,

greg k-h