linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: bridge: Get SIOCGIFBR/SIOCSIFBR ioctl working in compat mode

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:50:30 +0100
From:   Remi Pommarel <repk@...plefau.lt>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: bridge: Get SIOCGIFBR/SIOCSIFBR ioctl
 working in compat mode

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 08:59:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:31:39 +0100 Remi Pommarel wrote:
> > In compat mode SIOC{G,S}IFBR ioctls were only supporting
> > BRCTL_GET_VERSION returning an artificially version to spur userland
> > tool to use SIOCDEVPRIVATE instead. But some userland tools ignore that
> > and use SIOC{G,S}IFBR unconditionally as seen with busybox's brctl.
> > 
> > Example of non working 32-bit brctl with CONFIG_COMPAT=y:
> > $ brctl show
> > brctl: SIOCGIFBR: Invalid argument
> > 
> > Example of fixed 32-bit brctl with CONFIG_COMPAT=y:
> > $ brctl show
> > bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
> > br0
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel <repk@...plefau.lt>
> > Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> Since Arnd said this is not supposed to be backported I presume it
> should go to net-next?

Yes, out of curiosity, is it appropriate to mix "[PATCH net]" and
"[PATCH net-next]" in the same serie ?

Thanks

-- 
Remi