netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/7] net: dsa: mt7530: fix trapping frames with multiple CPU ports on MT7530

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: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:03:04 +0300
From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
 Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>, DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
 Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
 Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
 Bartel Eerdekens <bartel.eerdekens@...stell8.be>, mithat.guner@...ont.com,
 erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/7] net: dsa: mt7530: fix trapping frames with
 multiple CPU ports on MT7530

On 14.06.2023 00:14, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:04:10AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> Because I don't see the latter patch as a fix. It treats the symptom, not
>> the cause.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm fine with taking this patch from this series and put it on my
>> series for net-next instead.
> 
> Right, but what seems to have been the case during the net.git
> (and linux-stable.git) triage so far is that user impact matters.
> A configuration that works by coincidence and not by intention, but
> otherwise works reliably, still works, at the end of the day.
> 
> If you read the weekly net.git pull requests sent to Linus Torvalds,
> you'll see that maintainers try to make a summary of what had to be
> changed and why. There isn't really a strong reason why this patch *has*
> to be in those pull requests. That's kind of the mindset of what makes
> "stable" "stable".

Makes sense. I have prepared v5 that addresses everything so far, should 
I send it today now that Russell has reviewed v4?

Arınç