netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] net: Fixup netif_attrmask_next

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:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 14:42:24 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        caraitto@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com, jonolson@...gle.com,
        amritha.nambiar@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] net: Fixup netif_attrmask_next_and warning

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:42 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:39:11PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:35:44 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Can we instead revert 854701ba4c and take the larger rework Yury
> > > has posted a week ago into net-next?
> >
> > Oh, it was reposted today:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221013234349.1165689-2-yury.norov@gmail.com/
> >
> > But we need a revert of 854701ba4c as well to cover the issue back up
> > for 6.1, AFAIU.
>
> The patch 854701ba4c is technically correct. I fixed most of warnings in
> advance, but nobody can foresee everything, right? I expected some noise,
> and now we have just a few things to fix. This is what for -rc releases
> exist, didn't they?
Your job is great, I just want to help with some fixes. Fixes them in
-rc would be a good point.

>
> I suggest to keep the patch, because this is the only way to make
> cpumask_check()-related issues visible to people. If things will go as
> they go now, I expect that -rc3 will be clean from cpumask_check()
> warnings.
>
> Thanks,
> Yury



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren