netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] net/mlx5: Fix modify_cq

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: <70c2f2a817f9be2c9b4ceb9bae70313cd5807240.camel@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:25:46 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Edward Srouji <edwards@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] net/mlx5: Fix modify_cq_in alignment

On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 22:04 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:28:50AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:12:55 +0300
> > 
> > > From: Edward Srouji <edwards@...lanox.com>
> > > 
> > > Fix modify_cq_in alignment to match the device specification.
> > > After this fix the 'cq_umem_valid' field will be in the right
> > > offset.
> > > 
> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.19
> > > Fixes: bd37197554eb ("net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc with DEVX UID
> > > bits")
> > > Signed-off-by: Edward Srouji <edwards@...lanox.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> > 
> > Very confusing submission on many levels.
> > 
> > Coming from a Mellanox developer using a kernel.org email address.
> 
> It works for us and was proven internally as the best way to have
> setup which always works.
> 
> > Targetting the mlx5-next tree, yet CC:'ing stable.
> 
> This patch was found by RDMA team, needed by RDMA but changes are
> located
> in code accessible by mlx5_core part. This is why mlx5-next.
> 

Leon, 
mlx5-next "hence the -next" is NOT meant for fixes, it is indeed
confusing what you are trying to do here, Dave's system works perfectly
for us. 

> > A networking change, for which stable submissions are handled by me
> > by
> > hand and not via CC:'ing stable.
> 
> The intention was to have this patch in shared mlx5 branch, which is
> picked by RDMA too. This "Cc: stable@..." together with merge through
> RDMA will ensure that such patch will be part of stable
> automatically.
> 
> I can remove "Cc: ..." line if you think that it is inappropriate to
> have such line in patch in mlx5-next.

No, if this was meant to land in -stable then it should go to -rc via
net branch not to mlx5-next, let's save everybody's time and energy
here. no point in arguing.. 

I will take this to my net queue and submit to Dave's net branch, as we
always do for mlx5 fixes.

for next time, mlx5 fixes should always go to net branch first, then it
is just a matter of days to see the fix in -rc and queued up to
-stable.

> 
> Thanks