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]

Message-ID: <CAJF2gTSQ++HkY8=vhgN7+sqETjvbxNTuKLb_wLU=U90mUmUHFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:41:09 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        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 Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 12:03 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 21:42:41 -0700 Yury Norov wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I got 6 warnings booting my machine after pulling back from Linus
> (which included your patches in net for the first time).
> And that's not including the XPS and the virtio warning.
Oh, that's a wide effect than we thought.

>
> > This is what for -rc releases exist, didn't they?
> >
> > 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.
>
> This sounds too close to saying that "it's okay for -rc1 to be broken".
> Why were your changes not in linux-next for a month before the merge
> window? :(
>
> We will not be merging a refactoring series into net to silence an
> arguably over-eager warning. We need a minimal fix, Guo Ren's patches
> seem to miss the mark so I reckon the best use of everyone's time is
> to just drop the exposing patch and retry in -next 🤷



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren