linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

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: <97021b7f-d1d9-b33f-f6ef-de3df83c17e5@prevas.dk>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:22:57 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix vlan filtering for 6250

On 17/01/2021 22.08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
> 
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39:34AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> I finally managed to figure out why enabling VLAN filtering on the
>> 6250 broke all (ingressing) traffic,
>> cf. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/6424c14e-bd25-2a06-cf0b-f1a07f9a3604@prevas.dk/
>> .
>>
>> The first patch is the minimal fix and for net, while the second one
>> is a little cleanup for net-next.
>>
>> Rasmus Villemoes (2):
>>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: also read STU state in mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext
>>   net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250
> 
> It's strange to put a patch for net and one for net-next in the same
> series. 

Well, maybe, but one is a logical continuation of the other, and
including the second one preempted review comments saying "why don't you
merge the two implementations".

> But is there any reason why you don't just apply the second patch to
> "net"?

That's not really for me to decide? I thought net was just for the
things that needed fixing and should be sent to -stable - which is the
only reason I even split this in two, so there's a minimal logical fix
for the 6250. Otherwise I'd just have squashed the two, so that I don't
add lines only to delete them, along with the rest of the function, later.

Jakub, David, it's up to you.

Rasmus