netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] gve: Secure enough bytes in the first TX desc for all TCP pkts: manual merge

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: <c5872985-1a95-0bc8-9dcc-b6f23b439e9d@tessares.net>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 15:13:00 +0200
From:   Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To:     Shailend Chand <shailend@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>,
        Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] gve: Secure enough bytes in the first TX desc for
 all TCP pkts: manual merge

Hello,

On 03/04/2023 19:28, Shailend Chand wrote:
> Non-GSO TCP packets whose SKBs' linear portion did not include the
> entire TCP header were not populating the first Tx descriptor with
> as many bytes as the vNIC expected. This change ensures that all
> TCP packets populate the first descriptor with the correct number of
> bytes.
> 
> Fixes: 893ce44df565 ("gve: Add basic driver framework for Compute Engine Virtual NIC")
> Signed-off-by: Shailend Chand <shailend@...gle.com>

FYI, we got a small conflict when merging 'net' in 'net-next' in the
MPTCP tree due to this patch applied in 'net':

  3ce934558097 ("gve: Secure enough bytes in the first TX desc for all
TCP pkts")

and this one from 'net-next':

  75eaae158b1b ("gve: Add XDP DROP and TX support for GQI-QPL format")

----- Generic Message -----
The best is to avoid conflicts between 'net' and 'net-next' trees but if
they cannot be avoided when preparing patches, a note about how to fix
them is much appreciated.

The conflict has been resolved on our side[1] and the resolution we
suggest is attached to this email. Please report any issues linked to
this conflict resolution as it might be used by others. If you worked on
the mentioned patches, don't hesitate to ACK this conflict resolution.
---------------------------

Regarding this conflict, the new "define"'s have been kept. Note that
now, two "define"'s have the same value (182) but used in different
contexts. Maybe someone will want to create a new patch to merge them.

Cheers,
Matt

[1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/5ea299ff55b5
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
View attachment "5ea299ff55b5faad53889293c5d3e918deb456c6.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (540 bytes)