netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Remove redundant variable declaration in __dev_change

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: <943abc29-d5af-4064-8853-5f3c365bf6d6@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:02:10 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Remove redundant variable declaration in
 __dev_change_flags()

> But I agree with you, if you needed to look at it, it means the message
> is NOT good enough. I will update it.

Thanks.

> 
> > > Fixes: 991fb3f74c142e ("dev: always advertise rx_flags changes via netlink")
> > 
> > I suppose there is also a danger here this code has at some point in
> > the past has been refactored, such that the outer old_flags was used
> > at some point? Backporting this patch could then break something?  Did
> > you check for this? Again, a comment in the commit message that you
> > have checked this is safe to backport would be nice.
> 
> I haven't look at this, and I don't think this should be backported,
> thus, that is why I sent to net-next and didn't cc: stable.
> 
> That said, I don't think this should be backported, since it is not
> a big deal. Shouldn't I add the Fixes: in such case?

The danger of adding a Fixes: is that the ML bot will see the Fixes:
tag and might select it for backporting, even if we did not explicitly
queue it up for back porting. So i suggest dropping the tag.

    Andrew