Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] scsi: fnic: Fix crash in fnic_wq_cmpl_handler when FDMI times out

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:42:30AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 05:44:23PM -0700, Karan Tilak Kumar wrote:
> > When both the RHBA and RPA FDMI requests time out, fnic reuses a frame
> > to send ABTS for each of them. On send completion, this causes an
> > attempt to free the same frame twice that leads to a crash.
> > 
> > Fix crash by allocating separate frames for RHBA and RPA,
> > and modify ABTS logic accordingly.
> > 
> > Tested by checking MDS for FDMI information.
> > Tested by using instrumented driver to:
> > Drop PLOGI response
> > Drop RHBA response
> > Drop RPA response
> > Drop RHBA and RPA response
> > Drop PLOGI response + ABTS response
> > Drop RHBA response + ABTS response
> > Drop RPA response + ABTS response
> > Drop RHBA and RPA response + ABTS response for both of them
> > 
> > Fixes: 09c1e6ab4ab2 ("scsi: fnic: Add and integrate support for FDMI")
> > Reviewed-by: Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Arulprabhu Ponnusamy <arulponn@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Gian Carlo Boffa <gcboffa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Arun Easi <aeasi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: Arun Easi <aeasi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Arun Easi <aeasi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.14.x Please see patch description
> 
> I'm a bit confused.  Why do we need to specify 6.14.x?  I would have
> assumed that the Fixes tag was enough information.  What are we supposed
> to see in the patch description?
> 
> I suspect you're making this too complicated...  Just put
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and a Fixes tag and let the scripts figure
> it out.  Or put in the commit description, "The Fixes tag points to
> an older kernel because XXX but really this should only be backported
> to 6.14.x because YYY."

But here even with the comment in the commit description, you would still
just say:

Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.14.x

The stable maintainers trust you to list the correct kernel and don't
need to know the reasoning.

I much prefer to keep it simple whenever possible.  We had bad CVE where
someone left off the Fixes tag and instead specified
"Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.1" where 4.1 was the oldest supported
kernel on kernel.org.  The patch should have been applied to the older
vendor kernels but it wasn't because the the tag was wrong.

regards,
dan carpenter