netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: gro: fix misuse of CB in udp socket lookup

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: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 16:58:18 +0200
From: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
	tom@...bertland.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gal@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: gro: fix misuse of CB in udp socket lookup

> put your cover letter details in here; no need for a cover letter for a
> single patch.

I believe some details are irrelevant to the bugfix itself,
I prefer to avoid overloading the commit message...
Do you think there is a specific part of the cover letter that
should be added to the commit message?

> there are existing iif and sdif lookup functions. I believe this gro
> path needs a different version, but it should have a comment of when it
> can be used vs the existing ones. Also, it is small enough to be an
> inline like the existing ones. e.g., see inet_sdif

I was under the impression the coding style of Linux does not
encourage placing the inline keyword.
In which cases do you think I should add it?