On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:02:56PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> On 8/28/2018 1:50 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:08:55PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> > > On 8/28/2018 7:45 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > When AF_IB addresses are used during rdma_resolve_addr(), currently lock
> > > > is not held. A cma device can get removed while such list traversal is
> > > > in progress which may lead to crash.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, hold a lock while traversing the list which avoids such
> > > > situation.
> > > > This patch is not tested. It was discovered during code review.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.10
> > > > Fixes: f17df3b0d ("RDMA/cma: Add support for AF_IB to rdma_resolve_addr()")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Really? You are sending something to stable that hasn't been tested?
> > >
> >
> > Why are you saying that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
> I know I personally wouldn't let any patches from our drivers hit the list
> without being tested, and certainly patches that touch common code and may
> impact other drivers would definitely be tested.
>
> And I would guess this probably was tested or at least run through your QA,
> in which case, just strike that sentence from the commit message. We are
> trying to establish/maintain a good reputation here for our subsystem and
> when the casual reader of the git log comes along and sees this it tells
> them, hey RDMA folks take anything! Not the message we want to send I don't
> think.
I agree with you, the more proper commit message should be:
"This patch is not tested. ..." -> "This patch doesn't come as an outcome of
real crash, but from code review. It was tested as part of our regular
QA submission process without simulation of pre vs. post specific flows.
No new bugs were found by the QA after applying this patch."
Is it better?
Thanks
>
> -Denny
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
