netdev - Re: [PATCH net] Revert "s390/ism: fix receive message buffer allocation"

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: <60455a55f6595b9ac0fe8922a162b5727556d85a.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:13:53 +0200
From: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig
	 <hch@....de>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller"
	 <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandra Winter
 <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thorsten Winkler <twinkler@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily
 Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle
 <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        schnelle@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "s390/ism: fix receive message buffer
 allocation"

On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 09:16 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 13:37 +0200, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> > This reverts commit 58effa3476536215530c9ec4910ffc981613b413.
> > Review was not finished on this patch. So it's not ready for
> > upstreaming.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> It's not a big deal (no need to repost), but should the need arise
> again in the future it would be better explicitly marking the
> reverted commit in the tag area as 'Fixes'. The full hash in the
> commit message will likely save the day to stable teams, but better
> safe then sorry!

Thanks Paolo for the explanation. I was not even sure if the commit
hash of the erroneous commit will remain stable when this tree will be
merged upstream. In my (naive?) view this could be "autosquashed" into
nothing at the time of the merge.

But since there appears to be time for the next pull request to
upstream, I'll send a new version of the original patch with all the
review comments addressed.

Thanks again,
Gerd