netdev - RE: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

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: <AM0PR04MB6754526BAB0AA640A2EB571496770@AM0PR04MB6754.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:56:45 +0000
From:   Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 5:24 AM
[...]
>Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
>
>Hi all,
>
>Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_pf.c
>
>between commit:
>
>  26cb7085c898 ("enetc: Remove the mdio bus on PF probe bailout")
>
>from the net tree and commits:
>
>  07095c025ac2 ("net: enetc: Use DT protocol information to set up the ports")
>  c6dd6488acd1 ("enetc: Remove the imdio bus on PF probe bailout")
>
>from the net-next tree.
>
>I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>complex conflicts.
>

It's unfortunate, but I think the conflict was unavoidable at this stage.
The net-next commit 07095c025ac2 uncovers an older bug making it worse
by modifying code around it, introducing a regression for a use case that worked
before. That prompted the 'net' tree fix 26cb7085c898, which inevitably got into conflict
with 'net-next'.  The conflict is simple AFAIC, it's about one line, one function call on the
bailout path.

If you're asking me, you can go on with the resolution you consider to be the safest.
Then I can send a follow up patch after 'net-next' gets merged into 'net',
to make the necessary corrections if needed.
Fyi,
The bailout path after merging the patches should be as below, the tricky line
being marked as "==>":

err_reg_netdev:
	enetc_teardown_serdes(priv);
	enetc_free_msix(priv);
err_alloc_msix:
[...]
err_alloc_netdev:
==>	enetc_mdio_remove(pf);
	enetc_of_put_phy(pf);
err_map_pf_space:
[...]

Thanks.
Claudiu