linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] net: lan9303: Fix read error execution path

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:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 19:05:50 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Jerry Ray <jerry.ray@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, jbe@...gutronix.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: lan9303: Fix read error execution path

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 09:35:02AM -0600, Jerry Ray wrote:
> This patch fixes an issue where a read failure of a port statistic counter
> will return unknown results.  While it is highly unlikely the read will
> ever fail, it is much cleaner to return a zero for the stat count.
> 
> Fixes: a1292595e006 ("net: dsa: add new DSA switch driver for the SMSC-LAN9303")
> Signed-off-by: Jerry Ray <jerry.ray@...rochip.com>
> ---
> v1->v2:
>   corrected email header: net vs net-next, Added 1 maintainer, removed
>   blank line.

Actually it's not "net vs net-next", but rather, "nothing vs net-next".
As you can see, the patchwork CI complains that "Target tree name [is]
not specified in the subject".
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20221209153502.7429-1-jerry.ray@microchip.com/

Anyway, I think it's quite obvious for maintainers that it's a patch
intended for the net.git tree, so there isn't a reason to resend this
patch, just something to know and to do better in the future.

>   No changes to the body of the patch.
> ---

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>