linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v1 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix start index in gswip_port

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: <CAFBinCBZ6dDAgC+ZUAPOwTx5=yVfYBYvODs=v+DQzGzeEOeiDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 19:58:58 +0200
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix start index in gswip_port_fdb()

Hi Vladimir,

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
> The patch, as well as other improvements you might want to bring to the gswip driver
> (we have more streamlined support in DSA now for FDB isolation, see ds->fdb_isolation)
> is appreciated.
Thank you very much for this hint! I was not aware of the
ds->fdb_isolation flag and additionally I have some other questions
regarding FDB - I'll send these in a separate email though.
Also thank you for being quick to review my patches and on top of that
providing extra hints!

> But I don't think that a code cleanup patch that makes no functional
> difference, and isn't otherwise needed by other backported patches,
> should be sent to the "net" tree, and be backported to "stable" later?
Sure, I will actually re-send the whole series based on net-next.
When I initially wrote this patch I thought that it would fix a more
severe issue. Only later on I found that the bug is harmless (as
mentioned in the patch description). When I then finally sent the
patch I just stuck with my original plan to send it for the net.git
tree - instead of re-thinking whether that's still needed after my
latest findings.


Best regards,
Martin