netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8] net/ncsi: NCSI Improvment and bug fixes

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: <20161004.021325.1301099883976987002.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 04 Oct 2016 02:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     gwshan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, joel@....id.au, yuvali@...lanox.com,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8] net/ncsi: NCSI Improvment and bug fixes

From: Gavin Shan <gwshan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue,  4 Oct 2016 11:25:46 +1100

> This series of patches improves NCSI stack according to the comments
> I received after the NCSI code was merged to 4.8.rc1:
> 
>   * PATCH[1/8] fixes the build warning caused by xchg() with ia64-linux-gcc.
>     The atomic operations are removed. The NCSI's lock should be taken when
>     reading or updating its state and chained state.
>   * Channel ID (0x1f) is the reserved one and it cannot be valid channel ID.
>     So we needn't try to probe channel whose ID is 0x1f. PATCH[2/8] and
>     PATCH[3/8] are addressing this issue.
>   * The request IDs are assigned in round-robin fashion, but it's broken.
>     PATCH[4/8] make it work.
>   * PATCH[5/8] and PATCH[6/8] reworks the channel monitoring to improve the
>     code readability and its robustness.
>   * PATCH[7/8] and PATCH[8/8] introduces ncsi_stop_dev() so that the network
>     device can be closed and opened afterwards. No error will be seen.
> 
> Changelog
> =========
> v2:
>   * The NCSI's lock is taken when reading or updating its state as the
>     {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() isn't reliable.

Series applied, thanks.