netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] lan966x: Fix crash when adding interface under a lag

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: <20240212162717.2c8cb74e@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:27:17 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Swiatkowski
 <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] lan966x: Fix crash when adding interface under a
 lag

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:32:29 +0100 Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > You are right, the lan966x_lag_get_mask() will not set a bit for a port
> > that doesn't exist[1]. Therefore this check is not needed.
> > 
> > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_lag.c#L354  
> 
> While trying to rebase on net, the next version of this patch, I have seen that
> actually this version was accepted even though it was marked as "Changes
> Requested".
> The commit sha is: 15faa1f67ab405d47789d4702f587ec7df7ef03e
> 
> How do you prefer to go forward from here?
> - do you want to revert this and then I will send a new version?
> - should I send a patch that just removes this unneeded check?
> - any other suggestion?

Sorry about that, I must have forgotten to reset the tree after viewing
and didn't spot this between Brenos patches :S No big deal, let's leave
it as is.