netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: remove {revc,send}msg_copy

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: <b24043fc-ceee-4e84-8c92-de412a7557ae@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:35:55 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: remove {revc,send}msg_copy_msghdr() from exports

On 3/14/24 9:16 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-14 at 11:46 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 09:55 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> The only user of these was io_uring, and it's not using them anymore.
>>> Make them static and remove them from the socket header file.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> ## Form letter - net-next-closed
>>
>> The merge window for v6.9 has begun and we have already posted our pull
>> request. Therefore net-next is closed for new drivers, features, code
>> refactoring and optimizations. We are currently accepting bug fixes
>> only.
>>
>> Please repost when net-next reopens after March 25th.
>>
>> RFC patches sent for review only are obviously welcome at any time.
>>
>> See:
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#development-cycle
> 
> Jakub noted that waiting another cycle just to do a very safe cleanup
> would be a pity. I guess we can do a one-off exception here for good
> reason.

Thanks, seemed pretty silly to defer, and given the nature of the patch,
there's no way it could've been sent "in time" anyway as the io_uring
pull needed to go in first.

Besides, I would never remember to resend the cleanup and hence it
would've been lost.

-- 
Jens Axboe