netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/sched: act_vlan: Fix vlan modify to allow zero priority

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:42:19 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Boris Sukholitko <boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Ilya Lifshits <ilya.lifshits@...adcom.com>,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
        Edwin Peer <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/sched: act_vlan: Fix vlan modify to allow
 zero priority

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:57:13 +0300 Boris Sukholitko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:44:04 +0300 Boris Sukholitko wrote:  
> > > This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
> > > with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
> > > the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
> > > information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
> > > laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
> > > not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
> > > e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
> > > copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
> > > this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
> > > please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
> > > destroy any printed copy of it.  
> > 
> > Could you please resend without this legal prayer?  
> 
> Please accept my apologies. Apparently the "legal prayer" is added
> automatically to all outgoing Broadcom emails and I have no control over its
> existance.

Perhaps try resending from a personal email account? There are folks at
broadcom who communicate using the corporate address, perhaps they could
help you?

> Is there any way to regard it as a non-netiquette compliant, but
> nevertheless a personal signature? AFAICT, it does not affect the patch
> in question.

If the signature had no implications in legal sense the lawyers
wouldn't ask for it to be included. Code submitted to for inclusion
needs to be licensed under a FOSS license.