netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4] net: drop netif_attrmask

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: <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.