linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove bridge work

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]

Message-ID: <87r3d01yok.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2016 11:39:23 -0400
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...oirfairelinux.com, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove bridge work

Hi David,

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:

> From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:28:28 -0400
>
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Now that the bridge code defers the switchdev port state setting, there
>>> is no need to defer the port STP state change within the mv88e6xxx code.
>>> Thus get rid of the driver's bridge work code.
>>>
>>> This also fixes a race condition where the DSA layer assumes that the
>>> bridge code already set the unbridged port's STP state to Disabled
>>> before restoring the Forwarding state.
>>>
>>> As a consequence, this also fixes the FDB flush for the unbridged port
>>> which now correctly occurs during the Forwarding to Disabled transition.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 0bc05d585d38 ("switchdev: allow caller to explicitly request attr_set as deferred")
>>> Reported-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
>> 
>> This patch doesn't apply to -net, only applies to net-next...
>> 
>> How should I handle that, do I resend a patch for net-next with the good
>> subject prefix, and a v2 for -net?
>
> I applied this to net-next, thanks.

Do we want to send this fix to -net as well?

Thanks,

        Vivien