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]

Message-ID: <20161006115235.1a89c0da@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:52:35 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Liping Zhang <liping.zhang@...eadtrum.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Linus,

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:37:17 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > I have been carrying the following merge fix patch (for the merge of
> > the net-next tree with Linus' tree) for a while now which seems to have
> > got missed:  
> 
> Ugh. It doesn't seem to be a merge error, because that double iph
> assignment came from the original patch that introduced this function:
> commit ddc8b6027ad0 ("netfilter: introduce nft_set_pktinfo_{ipv4,
> ipv6}_validate()").

Except that commit effectively moved that function from
net/netfilter/nf_tables_netdev.c to
include/net/netfilter/nf_tables_ipv4.h while commit c73c24849011
("netfilter: nf_tables_netdev: remove redundant ip_hdr assignment")
removed the assignment in the original file (and has been in your tree
since v4.8-rc7) and that is where I originally actually got a conflict.

> So I wouldn't call it a merge error - it just looks like a bug in the
> network layer. So I'm not going to apply your patch even though it
> looks plausible to me, simply because it's outside my area of
> expertise.

no worries.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell