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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAAH8bW-6iS4bdfCGHSZa4U9=g8rWb78fA80dfQjyuGpAkY5bzQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:43:55 -0700 From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] net: drop netif_attrmask_next*() On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 5:29 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:07:31 -0700 Yury Norov wrote: > > > I see. Is that patch merged and on it's way? > > > > This patch is already in pull request. > > > > > Perhaps we can just revert it and try again after the merge window? > > > > I don't understand this. To me it looks fairly normal - the check has > > been fixed and merged (likely) in -rc1. After that we have 2 month to > > spot, fix and test all issues discovered with correct cpumask_check(). > > > > I'm not insisting in moving this series in -rc1. Let's give it review > > and careful testing, and merge in -rc2, 3 or whatever is appropriate. > > > > Regarding cpumask_check() patch - I'd like to have it in -rc1 because > > it will give people enough time to test their code... > > AFAIU you can keep the cpumask_check() patch, we just need to revert > the netdev patch from your earlier series? Yeah, I meant the "net: fix cpu_max_bits_warn() usage in netif_attrmask_next{,_and}". > If so I strongly prefer that we revert the broken cleanup rather than > try to pile on more re-factoring. What do you mean by broken cleanup? Netdev patch is acked by you, and this series didn't receive negative feedback so far. > The trees are not going anywhere, we can queue the patches for 6.2. Sure, 6.2 is OK as well, but I think any 6.1-rc would be more appropriate.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists