netdev - Re: [net-next RESEND v2] net: core: use shared sysctl macro

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:17:43 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Akhmat Karakotov <hmukos@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: [net-next RESEND v2] net: core: use shared sysctl macro

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 02:06:29PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:46:02 -0700 Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > sysctl-next makes a lot of sense, but I'm worried about conflicts.  
> > 
> > I can try to deal with them as I can send the pull request to Linus towards
> > the end of the merge window.
> 
> Do you mean that your -next branch is unstable and can be rebased?

Yes as I had no need / many users other than to get testing done before I
send a pull requst to Linus. The other users are developers sending
random updates with the latest efforts to clean up kernel/sysctl.c and
these sorts of changes. But it would seem that should stop and I should
make it stable.

> Often people keep their -next branches stable, and then only Linus 
> can deal with the conflict (with linux-next's help).

I missed the v5.18 merge window and I hadn't rebased after Linus
released v5.18-rc1 and so I had to rebase now either way too.

> > > Would you be able to spin up a stable branch based on -rc1 so we
> > > can pull it into net-next as well?  
> > 
> > Yes, absolutely. Just pushed, but I should note that linux-next already
> > takes in sysctl-next. And there are non-networking changes that are
> > in sysctl-next. 
> 
> What I mean by a stable branch is a separate branch on top of -rc1 with
> just this patch/series, which we can pull into net-next and you can
> pull into sysctl-next. That way this change will appear with the same
> commit id in both trees and git will deal with it smoothly.

Ah yes, I hadn't needed to make sysctl-next stable but indeed it would
make sense given what you are indicating.
> 
> > Does net-next go to Linus or is it just to help with
> > developers so they get something more close to linux-next but not as
> > insane?
> 
> net-next goes to Linus and it's "stable" by which I mean no rebasing 
> or hard pushing.

I can commit to making sysctl-next to make this coordination easier. It
make sense.

  Luis