netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:23:09 +0200
From:   Ivan Vecera <cera@...a.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] bridge: implement missing ndo_uninit()

2017-04-08 16:14 GMT+02:00 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:05:48 +0300
> Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/17 16:49, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:30:42AM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:41:58 +0300
>> >> <idosch@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>  static void br_dev_free(struct net_device *dev)
>> >>>  {
>> >>> - struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
>> >>> -
>> >>> - free_percpu(br->stats);
>> >>>   free_netdev(dev);
>> >>>  }
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Since the only thing left is free_netdev, you can now just set dev->destructor
>> >> to be free_netdev.
>> >
>> > Fine.
>> >
>> > Beside stylistic issues, I would appreciate comments on how this should
>> > be handled. Are we reverting the patch in the Fixes line or applying
>> > this patchset?
>> >
>> > I prefer the first option. Then after net is merged into net-next I can
>> > re-post this patchset with the requested changes.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>
> If this fixes the issue, then the one fix should go to stable, net and net-next.
> There is no good reason to have two versions.
>
+1