linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: Have netpoll bring-up DSA management interface

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: <20201116154710.20627867@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:47:10 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@...wei.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: Have netpoll bring-up DSA management interface

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:20:37 -0800 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> Florian for you patch specifially - can't we use
> >> netdev_for_each_lower_dev()?  
> > 
> > Looks like I forgot to respond here, yes we could do that because we do
> > call netdev_upper_dev_link() in net/dsa/slave.c. Let me re-post with
> > that done.  
> 
> I remember now there was a reason for me to "open code" this, and this
> is because since the patch is intended to be a bug fix, I wanted it to
> be independent from: 2f1e8ea726e9 ("net: dsa: link interfaces with the
> DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings")
> 
> which we would be depending on and is only two-ish releases away. Let me
> know if you prefer different fixes for different branches.

Ah, makes sense, we can apply this and then clean up in net-next. Just
mention that in the commit message. FWIW you'll need to repost anyway
once the discussion with Vladimir is resolved, because this is in the
old patchwork instance :)