netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/2] net: hsr: Use the seqnr lock for frames received via interlink port.

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: <20240912171413.4a81ab12@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:14:13 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] net: hsr: Use the seqnr lock for frames
 received via interlink port.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:51:55 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > The fix doesn't look super urgent and with a repost it won't have
> > time to get into tomorrow's PR with fixes. So I just pushed them
> > both into net-next.  
> 
> I just noticed that you applied

Yeah, the plural "you", but still my bad for not putting two
and two together :S

>    b3c9e65eb2272 ("net: hsr: remove seqnr_lock")
> 
> to net. Patch 1/2 should replace that one and clashes with this one now.
> I tried to explain that removing the lock and making it atomic can break
> things again.
> Should I send a revert of b3c9e65eb2272 to net?

I have a potentially very stupid plan to squash the revert into 
the cross merge..