netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: atlantic: Rename PCI driver struct to end in

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: <20250630123342.GF41770@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:33:42 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Loktionov <Alexander.Loktionov@...antia.com>,
	David VomLehn <vomlehn@...as.net>,
	Dmitry Bezrukov <Dmitry.Bezrukov@...antia.com>,
	Pavel Belous <Pavel.Belous@...antia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: atlantic: Rename PCI driver struct to end in _driver

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 11:18:45PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Simon,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 08:47:52PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 11:46:41AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > This is not only a cosmetic change because the section mismatch checks
> > > also depend on the name and for drivers the checks are stricter than for
> > > ops.
> > > 
> > > However aq_pci_driver also passes the stricter checks just fine, so no
> > > further changes needed.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 97bde5c4f909 ("net: ethernet: aquantia: Support for NIC-specific code")
> > 
> > From a Networking subsystem point of view
> > this feels more like an enhancement than a bug fix.
> > Can we drop the Fixes tag?
> 
> I think it's right to include it, but I won't argue if you apply the
> patch without it.

For Networking we generally use Fixes tags for bug fixes,
which in general address some adverse user-visible behaviour,
e.g. a panic.

Of course there is always room for interpretation. But based
on my understanding of this patch I would lean towards it
not being a bug fix. Again, in the sense that bug fix is usually
used for networking patches.

So I would suggest:

1. Target the patch (and others like it) at net-next

   Subject: [PATCH net-next] ...

2. Don't include a Fixes tag

3. Optionally refer to the patch that introduced the problem by
   using the following in the commit message.

   commit 97bde5c4f909 ("net: ethernet: aquantia: Support for NIC-specific
   code")

Thanks in advance for taking my opinion into consideration.