linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: mscc: ocelot: Fix crash when adding interface under a lag

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: <tencent_EF65B9D0760ACECA83817F30AE262884DC0A@qq.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 20:36:14 +0000
From: Jerry Wu <w.7erry@...mail.com>
To: christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr
Cc: UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	claudiu.manoil@....com,
	davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com,
	vladimir.oltean@....com,
	w.7erry@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: mscc: ocelot: Fix crash when adding interface under a lag

Dear Linux Kernel communities,

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 20:00 UTC Vladimir Oltean Wrote
> The 4th item in maintainer-netdev.rst is "don't repost your patches
> within one 24h period". This would have given me more than 4 minutes
between your v2 and... v2 (?!) to leave extra comments.

> The area below "---" in the patch is discarded when applying the patch.
> It is recommended that you use it for patch change information between
> versions. You copied a bunch of new people in v2 which have no reference
> to v1. Find your patches on https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ and
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ and reference them, and explain the
> changes you've made.

Thank you for your kind suggestion. I'll learn to leverage it in my future
contribution. And I want to explain that the repeated patch was sent due
to some network issues as I thought in first email failed. The latest
patch is the correct one.

The context link is
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251220180113.724txltmrkxzyaql@skbuf/T/

> Because the "bond" variable is used only once, I had a review comment in
> v1 to delete it, and leave the code with just this:

> bond_mask = ocelot_get_bond_mask(ocelot, ocelot_port->bond);

> You didn't leave any reason for disregarding this element of the feedback.

Sorry for the missing. I reserved the `bond` variable as near line 2355

>		for (port = lag; port < ocelot->num_phys_ports; port++) {
>			struct ocelot_port *ocelot_port = ocelot->ports[port];
>
>			if (!ocelot_port)
>				continue;
>
>			if (ocelot_port->bond == bond)
>				visited |= BIT(port);
>		}

I noticed that the bond variable would be used again so reserved it.
Sorry again for any inconvenience caused. If there is any information
needed or improper contribution practice from me please let me know as
I also found some other issues, being preparing to continue reporting.