linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 0/3] net: stmmac: Fix usage of maximum queue number macros

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: <CAAhV-H73FNTzhjwkZwO4RAZFF1Ri6EzpJL3jnWW4rPRFZQRZZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 21:47:29 +0800
From: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, 
	Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, 
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] net: stmmac: Fix usage of maximum queue number macros

Hi, Andrew,

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:21 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> > I'm not very familiar with the difference between net and net-next,
> > but I think this series should be backported to stable branches.
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
According to the rules a "bug" should break build or break runtime or
a security issue, but shouldn't be spelling fixes.

But from my point of view, this series is not just "spelling fixes",
and not "trivial fixes without benefit for users". It is obviously a
copy-paste error and may confuse developers, so I think the patches
really have "benefits".

>
>
>   It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a
>   device ID.
>
> Does this really bother people? Have we seen bug reports?
No bug report is because MTL_MAX_RX_QUEUES is accidentally equal to
MTL_MAX_TX_QUEUES and it just works, not because the logic is correct.
And Kunihiko's patch can also be treated as a report.

>
> There is another aspect to this. We are adding warnings saying that
> the device tree blob is broken. That should encourage users to upgrade
> their device tree blob. But most won't find any newer version. If this
> goes into net-next, the roll out will be a lot slower, developers on
> the leading edge will find the DT issue and submit a DT patch. By the
> time this is in a distro kernel, maybe most of the DT issues will
> already be fixed?
Goto net or goto net-next are both fine to me, I just think this
series should be backported to stable branches. There are lots of
patches backported even though they are less important than this
series (maybe not in the network subsystem).

Huacai
>
>         Andrew