linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/58] networking: Convert timers to use timer

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: <CAGXu5j+fcARk=yWh9Bbkn0C-4PHd+pKSPGV+5qPx88H6prvUoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:47:26 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/58] networking: Convert timers to use timer_setup()

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> + linux-wireless
>
> Hi Kees,
>
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>
>> This is the current set of outstanding networking patches to perform
>> conversions to the new timer interface (rebased to -next). This is not
>> all expected conversions, but it contains everything needed in networking
>> to eliminate init_timer(), and all the non-standard setup_*_timer() uses.
>
> So this also includes patches which I had queued for
> wireless-drivers-next:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9986253/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9986245/
>
> And looking at patchwork[1] I have even more timer_setup() related
> patches from you. It would be really helpful if you could clearly
> document to which tree you want the patches to be applied. I don't care

Hi! Sorry about that. It's been a bit tricky to juggle everything.

> if it's net-next or wireless-drivers-next as long as it's not the both
> (meaning that both Dave and me apply the same patch, which would be
> bad). The thing is that I really do not have time to figure out for
> every patch via which tree it's supposed to go.

Which split is preferred? I had been trying to separate wireless from
the rest of net (but missed some cases).

> For now I'll just drop all your timer_setup() related patches from my
> queue and I'll assume Dave will take those. Ok?
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

I guess I'll wait to see what Dave says.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security