linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] Networking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:29:40 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:03 AM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
>   gitolite@...kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git

So the af_smc poll fixes clashed with the revert of the commit that
caused those fixed to be done in the first place.

See the changes to net/smc/af_smc.c in my commit

  a11e1d432b51 ("Revert changes to convert to ->poll_mask() and aio
IOCB_CMD_POLL")

vs Ursula's

  24ac3a08e658 ("net/smc: rebuild nonblocking connect")

I (briefly) considered just dropping Ursula's changes entirely, but
they looked like a nice cleanup on their own, so what I did instead
was to try to fix up my revert instead.

That involved removing the release_sock/lock_sock pair around the
->poll() call, and removing the special "sock_poll_wait()" that got
re-introduced by my revert, but that Ursula's changes seem to obviate.

However, while I can look at the code and say "my merge makes sense to
me", (a) I can't test it, (b) I don't actually know the rules for SMC
sockets in the first place, and (c) I may be just incompetent.

So Ursula - mind checking and testing the end result? I _think_ it's
fine and the merge looked pretty obvious, but maybe af_smc got broken
again.

[ It's still going through by basic build tests, so I haven't pushed
out my merge yet, but it should be in the usual places in a short
while ]

Thanks,

                Linus