netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND iproute2 5.11] iplink_can: add Classical CAN frame LEN8

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: <1bf605b4-70e5-e5f2-f076-45c9b52a5758@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 08:47:31 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND iproute2 5.11] iplink_can: add Classical CAN frame
 LEN8_DLC support

On 2/2/21 10:30 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02.02.21 16:35, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 2/2/21 3:48 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you sure this patch is correctly assigned to iproute2-next?
>>>
>>> IMO it has to be applied to iproute2 as the functionality is already in
>>> v5.11 which is in rc6 right now.
>>>
>>
>> new features land in iproute2-next just as they do for the kernel with
>> net-next.
>>
>> Patches adding support for kernel features should be sent in the same
>> development window if you want the iproute2 support to match kernel
>> version.
>>
> 
> Oh, I followed the commits from iproute2 until the new include files
> from (in this case) 5.11 pre rc1 had been updated (on 2020-12-24):
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/commit/?id=2953235e61eb672bbdd2de84eb5b91c388f9a9b5
> 
> 
> I thought the uapi updates in iproute2 are *always* pulled from the
> kernel and not from iprout2-next which was new to me.

I sync kernel headers for iproute2-next with net-next, not linux-next.

> 
> Do you expect patches for iproute2-next when the relevant changes become
> available in linux-next then?
> 
> Even though I did not know about iproute2-next the patch is needed for
> the 5.11 kernel (as written in the subject).
> 


>From a cursory look it appears CAN commits do not go through the netdev
tree yet the code is under net/can and the admin tool is through
iproute2 and netdevs. Why is that? If features patches flowed through
net-next, we would not have this problem.