netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)

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: <CAHA+R7Me4zPdGpeQVHFLLGVq=4cVar09jQFyjA81nxF_Fmuppw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:57:00 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 09:34 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> I didn't look into ipoib_header_ops, thought it might have some dependency
>> on symbols.
>
> I did look before answering and suggesting this, you really should do
> the same instead of giving advices of over engineering the stack.
>
> Best is the enemy of the good.
>
> Its hard to find some networking function trivial than this one.

What about other modules defining *header_ops? Don't they
need to move to vmlinux as well?

I still don't like this workaround even just for stable. Although
definitely a real fix could be harder to backport, for me it is normal
backport 8+ patches to stable:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg66122.html
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg79967.html

I know you disagree, I don't even want to waste time on arguing it.
--
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