netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: apply MTU normalization for ports that join a LAG under a bridge too

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: <20210811153833.0f63e9f5@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:38:33 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: apply MTU normalization for ports that
 join a LAG under a bridge too

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:44:41 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:45:20PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > We want the MTU normalization logic to apply each time
> > dsa_port_bridge_join is called, so instead of chasing all callers of
> > that function, we should move the call within the bridge_join function
> > itself.
> > 
> > Fixes: 185c9a760a61 ("net: dsa: call dsa_port_bridge_join when joining a LAG that is already in a bridge")
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > ---  
> 
> I forgot to rebase this patch on top of 'net' and now I notice that it
> conflicts with the switchdev_bridge_port_offload() work.
> 
> Do we feel that the issue this patch fixes isn't too big and the patch
> can go into net-next, to avoid conflicts and all that?

The commit message doesn't really describe the impact so hard to judge,
but either way you want to go - we'll need a repost so it can be build
tested.

Conflicts are not a huge deal. Obviously always best to wait for trees
to merge if that fixes things, but if net has dependency on net-next
you should just describe what you want the resolution to look like we
should be able to execute :)