linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] macsec: add support for IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec

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: <IA1PR12MB635381D5C6C3ACE64763C8D6AB1C9@IA1PR12MB6353.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 10:18:39 +0000
From:   Emeel Hakim <ehakim@...dia.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        "atenart@...nel.org" <atenart@...nel.org>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] macsec: add support for
 IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Friday, 9 December 2022 4:33
> To: Emeel Hakim <ehakim@...dia.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>;
> davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; pabeni@...hat.com;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; sd@...asysnail.net; atenart@...nel.org; jiri@...nulli.us
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] macsec: add support for
> IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:32:44 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > I think you're just moving this code, but still.
> 
> And by "by still" I mean - it's still a bug, so it needs to be fixed first.

The code added by those patches does not use the rtnl_lock, the lock is just getting moved as part of sharing similar code,
but the new code is still not using it, I don’t think those  patches need to wait until a fix of an existing locking issue as long
as the new code is not inserting any bugs.