netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: rename group sysfs entry to netdev

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: <20110209.140558.59676278.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:05:58 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dfeng@...hat.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	therbert@...gle.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
	ddvlad@...edu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: rename group sysfs entry to
 netdev_group

From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:03:23 -0800 (PST)

> From: Xiaotian feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
> Date: Wed,  9 Feb 2011 18:52:49 +0800
> 
>> From: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
>> 
>> commit a512b92 adds sysfs entry for net device group, but
>> before this commit, tun also uses group sysfs, so after this
>> commit checkin, kernel warns like this:
>>     sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/devices/virtual/net/vnet0/group'
>> 
>> Since tun has used this for years, rename sysfs under tun might
>> break existing userspace, so rename group sysfs entry for net device
>> group is a better choice.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
> 
> I don't think we have much choice in this matter, so I have applied
> this patch, thanks!

Wait, you didn't even build test this patch?!?!?!?!

net/core/net-sysfs.c: In function ‘format_netdev_group’:
net/core/net-sysfs.c:298: error: ‘const struct net_device’ has no member named ‘netdev_group’
net/core/net-sysfs.c: At top level:
net/core/net-sysfs.c:333: error: ‘show_group’ undeclared here (not in a function)

"RFC" doesn't preclude you from at least build testing patches you
post.

Sigh...