linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 net 0/4] Fix passing 0 to ERR

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: <584b87a4-4a69-4119-bcd8-d4561f41ed53@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:17:07 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Yue Haibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
CC: <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	<hawk@...nel.org>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	<maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, <vedang.patel@...el.com>,
	<jithu.joseph@...el.com>, <andre.guedes@...el.com>,
	<sven.auhagen@...eatech.de>, <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 0/4] Fix passing 0 to ERR_PTR in intel ether
 drivers



On 10/22/2024 12:32 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 02:56:19PM +0800, Yue Haibing wrote:
>> Fixing sparse error in xdp run code by introducing new variable xdp_res
>> instead of overloading this into the skb pointer as i40e drivers done
>> in commit 12738ac4754e ("i40e: Fix sparse errors in i40e_txrx.c") and
>> commit ae4393dfd472 ("i40e: fix broken XDP support").
>>
>> v3: Fix uninitialized 'xdp_res' in patch 3 and 4 which Reported-by
>>     kernel test robot
>> v2: Fix this as i40e drivers done instead of return NULL in xdp run code
> 
> Hi Yue Haibing, all,
> 
> I like these changes a lot. But I do wonder if it would
> be more appropriate to target them at net-next (or iwl-next)
> rather than net, without Fixes tags. This is because they
> don't seem to be fixing (user-visible) bugs. Am I missing something?
> 
> ...

Yea, these do seem like next candidates.