[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v1 1/1] e1000e: Fix possible overflow in LTR decoding

Thorsten Leemhuis regressions at leemhuis.info
Sun Mar 27 17:24:54 UTC 2022


On 27.03.22 19:14, Sasha Neftin wrote:
> When we decode the latency and the max_latency u16 value does not fill
> the required size and could lead to the wrong LTR representation.
> Replace the u16 type with the u32 type and allow corrected LTR
> representation.
> 
> Fixes: 44a13a5d99c7 ("e1000e: Fix the max snoop/no-snoop latency for 10M")
> Reported-by: James Hutchinson <jahutchinson99 at googlemail.com>
> Reported-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions at leemhuis.info>

Please drop me here (I merely forwarded the report) and instead please
add a 'Link:' tag pointing to the original report for anyone wanting to
look into the backstory in the future, as explained in
'Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst' and
'Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst'? E.g. like this:

"Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215689"

And if the patch is already good to go: could the maintainer please add
it when applying the patch?

In anyone wonders why I care: there are internal and publicly used tools
and scripts out there that reply on proper "Link" tags. I don't known
how many, but there is at least one public tool I'm running that cares:
regzbot, my regression tracking bot, which I use to track Linux kernel
regressions and generate the regression reports sent to Linus. Proper
"Link:" tags allow the bot to automatically connect regression reports
with fixes being posted or applied to resolve the particular regression
-- which makes regression tracking a whole lot easier and feasible for
the Linux kernel. That's why it's a great help for me if people set
proper "Link" tags.

While at it, let me tell regzbot about this thread:
#regzbot ^backmonitor:
https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/6801d0ef-9620-0f61-c107-c2c5524952ef@leemhuis.info/

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I'm getting a lot of
reports on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them and lack
knowledge about most of the areas they concern. I thus unfortunately
will sometimes get things wrong or miss something important. I hope
that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to tell me
in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record
straight.


More information about the Intel-wired-lan mailing list