netdev - Re: [PATCH] [net-next] net/mlx5e: fix ip6_dst

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: <2ec67d1a-32ae-479e-99c2-dc5042d9f57e@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 11:00:02 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Jianbo Liu" <jianbol@...dia.com>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>,
 "Saeed Mahameed" <saeedm@...dia.com>, "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>,
 "Tariq Toukan" <tariqt@...dia.com>, "Mark Bloch" <mbloch@...dia.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>
Cc: "Cosmin Ratiu" <cratiu@...dia.com>, "Raed Salem" <raeds@...dia.com>,
 Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [net-next] net/mlx5e: fix ip6_dst_lookup link failure

On Fri, Feb 6, 2026, at 10:56, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> On 2/4/2026 9:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/Kconfig b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/Kconfig
>> index 9cf394c66939..c298efe93f97 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/Kconfig
>> @@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ config MLX5_EN_IPSEC
>>   	depends on MLX5_CORE_EN
>>   	depends on XFRM_OFFLOAD
>>   	depends on INET_ESP_OFFLOAD || INET6_ESP_OFFLOAD
>> +	depends on IPV6!=m || MLX5_CORE=m
>
> Thanks for the fix.
> I received a report for this same error here: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202512261850.P5Jp5BSz-lkp@intel.com/
>
> We were about to send a fix ourselves, it is to simply add:
>    depends on IPV6 || !IPV6
> Is there a specific reason to prefer "depends on IPV6!=m || 
> MLX5_CORE=m"? To me, the IPV6 || !IPV6 syntax seems a bit cleaner.

MLX5_EN_IPSEC needs the dependency, but this is a 'bool' symbols.

The "IPV6 || !IPV6" syntax only works on tristate symbols, so you'd
have to put it into CONFIG_MLX5_CORE itself, but MLX5_CORE does
not actually have the IPV6 dependency unless MLX5_EN_IPSEC is
enabled.

     Arnd