netdev - Re: [PATCH net v1] ptp: Make max_phase_adjustment sysfs device attribute invisible when not supported

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: <27c450f4-0b72-4d32-b99c-1b29831ab468@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 20:15:58 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1] ptp: Make max_phase_adjustment sysfs device
 attribute invisible when not supported

> It can be after -rc1. I understand your point now from this elaboration.
> Since the change is not heading towards a final release yet but a
> release candidate, it's not an "urgent" patch to be applied before -rc1.
> 
> >
> > We are in the grey area where it is less clear which tree it should be
> > against. So it is good to explain after the --- what your intention
> > is, so the Maintainers get a heads up and understand what you are
> > trying to achieve.
> 
> Agreed, I could have used git notes for that in my patch generation.
> Noted for the future. Just to be clear, my intention is for this fix to
> make its way before the final 6.5 release (before the changes make their
> way to an end user since the NULL pointer dereference when reading that
> sysfs node from a PHC not supporting phase adjustment is problematic).

A NULL pointer dereference is a valid reason for stable anyway. 

> I think the issue being present in a release candidate is a minor
> problem.  Would I still keep the Fixes tag however if targeting
> net-next?

It is useful, even for something in net-next. It is not needed for
back porting, except for making it clear back porting is not needed,
But there are some statistics gathered based on Fixes tags, etc.

     Andrew