Hi,
Is there any reason for this panic fix not being applied in stable?
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20180313053248.13654-1-jelsasser@appneta.com/...
It seems that linux 4.9.184 has the bug too.
Regards,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 06:34:58PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
Hi,
Is there any reason for this panic fix not being applied in stable?
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20180313053248.13654-1-jelsasser@appneta.com/...
What's the upstream commit id?
-- Thanks, Sasha
On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
What's the upstream commit id?
The commit wasn't needed upstream, as I only sent the original patch after 79e7fff47b7b ("net: remove support for per driver ndo_busy_poll()") had made the fix unnecessary in Linus' tree.
May've gotten lost in the shuffle due to my poor Fixes tags. The patch in question applied only on top of the 4.9 stable release at the time, but the actual NPE had been around in some form since 3.11 / 0602129286705 ("net: add low latency socket poll").
Josh
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:03:01PM -0700, Josh Elsasser wrote:
On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
What's the upstream commit id?
The commit wasn't needed upstream, as I only sent the original patch after 79e7fff47b7b ("net: remove support for per driver ndo_busy_poll()") had made the fix unnecessary in Linus' tree.
May've gotten lost in the shuffle due to my poor Fixes tags. The patch in question applied only on top of the 4.9 stable release at the time, but the actual NPE had been around in some form since 3.11 / 0602129286705 ("net: add low latency socket poll").
Ok, can people then resend this and be very explicit as to why this is needed only in a stable kernel tree and get reviews from people agreeing that this really is the correct fix?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:45 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:03:01PM -0700, Josh Elsasser wrote:
On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
What's the upstream commit id?
The commit wasn't needed upstream, as I only sent the original patch after 79e7fff47b7b ("net: remove support for per driver ndo_busy_poll()") had made the fix unnecessary in Linus' tree.
May've gotten lost in the shuffle due to my poor Fixes tags. The patch in question applied only on top of the 4.9 stable release at the time, but the actual NPE had been around in some form since 3.11 / 0602129286705 ("net: add low latency socket poll").
Ok, can people then resend this and be very explicit as to why this is needed only in a stable kernel tree and get reviews from people agreeing that this really is the correct fix?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
I think that David alredy reviewed the patch here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20180313.105115.682846171057663636.davem@dave...
Anyway, I tested the patch and it fixes the panic, at least on my iwlwifi card, so:
Tested-by: Matteo Croce mcroce@redhat.com
Regards,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:39:39PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:45 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:03:01PM -0700, Josh Elsasser wrote:
On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
What's the upstream commit id?
The commit wasn't needed upstream, as I only sent the original patch after 79e7fff47b7b ("net: remove support for per driver ndo_busy_poll()") had made the fix unnecessary in Linus' tree.
May've gotten lost in the shuffle due to my poor Fixes tags. The patch in question applied only on top of the 4.9 stable release at the time, but the actual NPE had been around in some form since 3.11 / 0602129286705 ("net: add low latency socket poll").
Ok, can people then resend this and be very explicit as to why this is needed only in a stable kernel tree and get reviews from people agreeing that this really is the correct fix?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
I think that David alredy reviewed the patch here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20180313.105115.682846171057663636.davem@dave...
Anyway, I tested the patch and it fixes the panic, at least on my iwlwifi card, so:
Tested-by: Matteo Croce mcroce@redhat.com
Ok, but what can I do with this? I need a real patch, in mail form, that I can apply. Not a web link to an email archive.
You have read the stable kernel rules, right? :)
greg k-h
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:53 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:39:39PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:45 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:03:01PM -0700, Josh Elsasser wrote:
On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
What's the upstream commit id?
The commit wasn't needed upstream, as I only sent the original patch after 79e7fff47b7b ("net: remove support for per driver ndo_busy_poll()") had made the fix unnecessary in Linus' tree.
May've gotten lost in the shuffle due to my poor Fixes tags. The patch in question applied only on top of the 4.9 stable release at the time, but the actual NPE had been around in some form since 3.11 / 0602129286705 ("net: add low latency socket poll").
Ok, can people then resend this and be very explicit as to why this is needed only in a stable kernel tree and get reviews from people agreeing that this really is the correct fix?
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
I think that David alredy reviewed the patch here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20180313.105115.682846171057663636.davem@dave...
Anyway, I tested the patch and it fixes the panic, at least on my iwlwifi card, so:
Tested-by: Matteo Croce mcroce@redhat.com
Ok, but what can I do with this? I need a real patch, in mail form, that I can apply. Not a web link to an email archive.
You have read the stable kernel rules, right? :)
greg k-h
Understood.
Josh, as you are the original author, can you please resend it to -stable? Feel free to add this tag:
Tested-by: Matteo Croce mcroce@redhat.com
Regards,
On Jul 1, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Matteo Croce mcroce@redhat.com wrote:
Josh, as you are the original author, can you please resend it to -stable? Feel free to add this tag:
Tested-by: Matteo Croce mcroce@redhat.com
For sure. Resent with your Tested-by, along with a second patch that applies to the 4.4.y LTS kernel.
I'm still a little hazy on how net fixes work for older LTS releases, so I hope I've sent these properly. I can respin if necessary.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 06:34:58PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
Hi,
Is there any reason for this panic fix not being applied in stable?
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20180313053248.13654-1-jelsasser@appneta.com/...
I can't apply patches from random urls :)
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg Kroah-Hartman -
Josh Elsasser -
Matteo Croce -
Sasha Levin