netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/3] Netfilter fixes for net

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: <ZzY8o3CusAHFVrVf@calendula>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:08:35 +0100
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	fw@...len.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] Netfilter fixes for net

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 04:31:48PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 11/14/24 16:00, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >> On 11/14/24 13:57, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >>> The following patchset contains Netfilter fixes for net:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Update .gitignore in selftest to skip conntrack_reverse_clash,
> >>>    from Li Zhijian.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Fix conntrack_dump_flush return values, from Guan Jing.
> >>>
> >>> 3) syzbot found that ipset's bitmap type does not properly checks for
> >>>    bitmap's first ip, from Jeongjun Park.
> >>>
> >>> Please, pull these changes from:
> >>>
> >>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netfilter/nf.git nf-24-11-14
> >>
> >> Almost over the air collision, I just sent the net PR for -rc8. Do any
> >> of the above fixes have a strong need to land into 6.12?
> > 
> > selftests fixes are trivial.
> > 
> > ipset fix would be good to have.
> > 
> > But if this is pushing things too much too the limit on your side,
> > then skip.
> 
> I would need to take back the already shared net PR. I prefer to avoid
> such a thing to avoid confusion with the process, especially for non
> critical stuff.

We can wait, thanks.

> It looks like the ipset fix addresses a quite ancient issue, I
> guess/hope it's not extremely critical.