netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: Don't check for RXFH fields conflict when no input

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: 
 <175270381000.1341865.15234146068113913299.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:10:10 +0000
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 andrew@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org, dtatulea@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: Don't check for RXFH fields conflict
 when no input_xfrm is requested

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:07:54 +0300 you wrote:
> The requirement of ->get_rxfh_fields() in ethtool_set_rxfh() is there to
> verify that we have no conflict of input_xfrm with the RSS fields
> options, there is no point in doing it if input_xfrm is not
> supported/requested.
> 
> This is under the assumption that a driver that supports input_xfrm will
> also support ->get_rxfh_fields(), so add a WARN_ON() to
> ethtool_check_ops() to verify it, and remove the op NULL check.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net-next,v2] ethtool: Don't check for RXFH fields conflict when no input_xfrm is requested
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/410b0ace8891

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html