netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5e: fix non-IPV6 build

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: <20201203174732.798cf160@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:47:32 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, saeedm@...dia.com,
        leon@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, tariqt@...lanox.com,
        maximmi@...lanox.com, arnd@...db.de, borisp@...dia.com,
        efremov@...ux.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5e: fix non-IPV6 build

On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 01:20:15 +0000 patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (refs/heads/master):
> 
> On Fri,  4 Dec 2020 00:12:59 +0100 you wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > 
> > When IPv6 is disabled, the flow steering code causes a build failure:
> > 
> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/fs_tcp.c:55:14: error: no member named 'skc_v6_daddr' in 'struct sock_common'; did you mean 'skc_daddr'?
> >                &sk->sk_v6_daddr, 16);
> >                     ^
> > include/net/sock.h:380:34: note: expanded from macro 'sk_v6_daddr'
> >  #define sk_v6_daddr             __sk_common.skc_v6_daddr
> > 
> > [...]  
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>   - net/mlx5e: fix non-IPV6 build
>     https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/8a78a440108e
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!
> --
> Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
> https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

Heh, it appears you managed to create a similar enough patch for the
patchwork bot to confuse the two :)

So to be clear this was not applied :)