linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 net-next 6/8] net: dsa: felix: populate mac

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:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:41:18 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 net-next 6/8] net: dsa: felix: populate mac_capabilities
 for all ports

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:16:21PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Therefore, I think you can drop this patch from your series and
> > you won't see any functional change.
> 
> This is true. I am also a bit surprised at Colin's choices to
> (b) split the work he submitted such that he populates mac_capabilities
>     but does not make any use of it (not call phylink_generic_validate
>     from anywhere). We try as much as possible to not leave dead code
>     behind in the mainline tree, even if future work is intended to
>     bring it to life. I do understand that this is an RFC so the patches
>     weren't intended to be applied as is, but it is still confusing to
>     review a change which, as you've correctly pointed out, has no
>     effect to the git tree as it stands.

Ah, I retract this comment; after actually looking at all the patches, I
do see that in patch 8/8, Colin does call phylink_generic_validate().