netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/4] wireguard fixes for 6.17-rc6

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: <CAHmME9q8xT4Ou2Ln_BqSYgWEU7bwqiYyt3MRxtxbn=r6HyG9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 21:07:07 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] wireguard fixes for 6.17-rc6

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:20 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 03:36:40 +0200 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > 1) A general simplification to the way wireguard chooses the next
> >    available cpu, by making use of cpumask_nth(), and covering an edge
> >    case.
> >
> > 2) A cleanup to the selftests kconfig.
> >
> > 3) A fix to the selftests kconfig so that it actually runs again.
>
> These don't really seem 6.17-worthy TBH.
> Do you care deeply or can we push these to -next?

I was mainly concerned about (3), so that the tests would run again,
but I guess it's not a huge deal, and I see you already applied these
to -next, so that's fine.

Jason