netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] vmxnet3: Fix inconsistent DMA accesses

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: <20241118161615.2d0f101b@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:16:15 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>
Cc: Ronak Doshi <ronak.doshi@...adcom.com>, Broadcom internal kernel review
 list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andy King
 <acking@...are.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Raphael Isemann <teemperor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] vmxnet3: Fix inconsistent DMA accesses

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:31:35 -0700 Brian Johannesmeyer wrote:
> > But committing patch 1 just
> > to completely revert it in patch 2 seems a little odd.  
> 
> Indeed, this was a poor choice on my part. I suppose the correct way
> to do this would be to submit them separately (as opposed to as a
> series)? I.e.: (i) one patch to start adding the synchronization
> operations (in case `adapter` should indeed be in a DMA region), and
> (ii) a second patch to remove `adapter` from a DMA region? Based on
> the feedback, I can submit a V2 patch for either (i) or (ii).

What is the purpose of the first patch? Is it sufficient to make 
the device work correctly?

If yes, why do we need patch 2.
If no, why do we have patch 1, instead of a revert / patch 2...