linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next tree

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: <4ede8b00-aab9-4be6-a589-98cc0d98b929@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:16:50 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov
	<ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, David Miller
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net-next
 tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:02:21 +1000

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/net/netkit.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   00d066a4d4ed ("netdev_features: convert NETIF_F_LLTX to dev->lltx")
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   d96608794889 ("netkit: Disable netpoll support")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Your fix is technically correct, but maybe swap the lines?

 	dev->priv_flags |= IFF_NO_QUEUE;
+	dev->priv_flags |= IFF_DISABLE_NETPOLL;
+	dev->lltx = true;

Looks more natural I'd say...

Thanks,
Olek