netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] mptcp: fix conflict with <netinet/in.h>

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: <a74a82cf-130-9eef-d128-2c88e081ba31@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ossama Othman <ossama.othman@...el.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        matthieu.baerts@...sares.net, mptcp@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] mptcp: fix conflict with <netinet/in.h>

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Mat Martineau wrote:
>> This is a minor "fix" to be sure, which I thought did not meet the bar for
>> net and therefore submitted for net-next. It's not prep for another
>> change, it's something Ossama and I noticed when doing code review for a
>> userspace program that included the header. There's no problem with kernel
>> compilation, and there's also no issue if the userspace program happens to
>> include netinet/in.h before linux/mptcp.h
>>
>>
>> If my threshold for the net branch is too high, I have no objection to
>> having this patch applied there and will recalibrate :)
>>
>> Do you prefer to have no Fixes: tags in net-next, or did that just seem
>> ambiguous in this case?
>
> The important point is that the middle ground of marking things as fixes
> and at the same time putting them in -next, to still get them
> backported but with an extended settling time -- that middle ground
> does not exist.
>
> If we look at the patch from the "do we want it backported or not"
> perspective I think the answer is yes, hence I'd lean towards net.
> If you think it doesn't matter enough for backport - we can drop the
> fixes tag and go with net-next. Unfortunately I don't have enough
> direct experience to tell how annoying this will be to the user space.
> netinet/in.h vs linux/in.h is a mess :(
>

By that criteria, I lean towards net too. Thanks Jakub.

--
Mat Martineau
Intel