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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 01:54:05 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...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, Nov 16, 2020 at 03:47:10PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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 :)

Yeah, I think Florian just wants netconsole to work in stable kernels,
which is a fair point. As for my 16-line patch that I suggested to him
in the initial reply, what do you think, would that be a "stable"
candidate? We would be introducing a fairly user-visible change
(removing one step that is mentioned as necessary in the documentation),
do you think it would benefit the users more to also have that behavior
change backported to all LTS kernels, or just keep it as something new
for v5.11? Either way, if it doesn't qualify as a patch for "stable",
then I guess Florian should just resubmit his patch on
net/core/netpoll.c.