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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240411135227.GL514426@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:52:27 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: 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>,
	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, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13:53AM +0200, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> 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.

net and net-next hashes are always stable.

> 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.

It looks like this commit was accepted, so we have what it is.