netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <26571.1370021241@death.nxdomain>
Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 10:27:21 -0700
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	vyasevic@...hat.com
cc:	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net/core, bonding: dev_uc_sync fixes, bonding update

Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:

>On 05/31/2013 11:56 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:31:55AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>>>> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:55:38 -0700
>>>>
>>>>> 	This patch set includes 6 patches: four fixes to the dev_mc_sync /
>>>>> dev_mc_unsync system; and two patches to bonding, one to utilize the sync
>>>>> / unsync functions, and another minor fix related to MAC address handling.
>>>>
>>>> These look like fixes that should go into net, why target net-next?
>>>
>>> In my oppinion 0-4 should go into net since they fix the bug I
>>> reported in:
>>>
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/270477
>>>
>>> I've tested patches 0-4 of this series so feel free to add my tested
>>> by to those:
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
>>>
>>>>From just a casual observation of patch 5-6 they do not appear to be
>>> bug fixes which is why this was probably marked net-next.
>>
>> 	They're against net-next because I was working to convert
>> bonding to dev_sync/unsync against net-next and neglected to rebase then
>> before I posted.  The bonding patches (5 and 6) do fix a couple of bugs
>> related to MAC address handling on s390 (the lack of additional unicast
>> address propagation to the slaves makes qeth unhappy in some cases), so
>> arguably they could go either way, but I'm ok with those in net-next if
>> it's an issue.
>>
>> 	I do agree that 1-4 should go into net, once Vlad gives them a
>> look.
>>
>> 	-J
>
>I've reviewed the patches and ran a quick test.  They look good and fix
>obvious problems.  Thanks to Jay for finding and fixing them.
>
>Reviewed-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>

	Please hold off applying these.

	I just spotted an error in patch #5, so I'm going to fix that
and respin the set against -net.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html