linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v1 1/1] netfilter: conntrack: Guard possoble unused functions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zt__ZT-P0kUY909z@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:12:21 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Felix Huettner <felix.huettner@...l.schwarz>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/1] netfilter: conntrack: Guard possoble unused
 functions

On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 07:30:43PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 06:36:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 04:17:12PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 12:37:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 05:29:38PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 11:36:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Local testing seems to show that the warning is still emitted
> > > > > for ctnetlink_label_size if CONFIG_NETFILTER_NETLINK_GLUE_CT is enabled
> > 
> > Hold on, this is not related to the patch.
> > It might be another issue.
> 
> Yes, sorry, I see that now too.
> 
> Perhaps it can be fixed separately, something like this:

If you make a patch, it will help somebody who has that in their configuration
files enabled (with the other one being disabled). Note, I use x86_64_defconfig
which doesn't have this specific issue to be occurred.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko