Re: [GIT] Networking

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM David Miller wrote: > > Please pull, thanks a lot! Pulled, Linus

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:10 PM David Miller wrote: > I guess this is my reward for trying to break the monotony of > pull requests :-) I actually went back and checked a few older pull requests to see if this had been going on for a while and I just hadn't noticed. It

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 14:25:59 -0700 > David, is there something you want to tell us? > > Drugs are bad, m'kay.. I guess this is my reward for trying to break the monotony of pull requests :-)

Re: [GIT] Networking

David, is there something you want to tell us? Drugs are bad, m'kay.. Linus On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:00 PM David Miller wrote: > "from Kevin Easton", "Thanks to Bhadram Varka", "courtesy of Gustavo A. > R. Silva", "To Eric Dumazet we are most grateful for

Re: [GIT] Networking

Sorry, this is a dup of the bug fix pull request from last week. I'll send you the right one.

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:15:20 +0100 > On 11/15/2017 09:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Miller wrote: >>> >>> Highlights: >> >> Lowlights: >> >> 1) it duplicated a commit from the hrtimer

Re: [GIT] Networking

On 11/15/2017 09:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Miller wrote: >> >> Highlights: > > Lowlights: > > 1) it duplicated a commit from the hrtimer tree, which had been > cleaned up and rewritten, but then merging the second copy of the >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Miller wrote: > > Highlights: Lowlights: 1) it duplicated a commit from the hrtimer tree, which had been cleaned up and rewritten, but then merging the second copy of the commit re-introduced the bad code that had been cleaned up.

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Luca Coelho wrote: > > This patch is not very important (unless you really like blinking lights > -- maybe I'll change my mind when the holidays approach :P). so it is > fine if you just want to revert it for now. > > In any case, I'll send a patch

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 05:04 +, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 21:57 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Coelho, Luciano > > wrote: > > > > > > This seems to be a problem with backwards-compatibility with FW version > > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 21:57 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Coelho, Luciano > wrote: > > > > This seems to be a problem with backwards-compatibility with FW version > > 27. We are now in version 31[1] and upgrading will probably fix that.

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > > This seems to be a problem with backwards-compatibility with FW version > 27. We are now in version 31[1] and upgrading will probably fix that. I can confirm that fw version 31 works. > But obviously the

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 16:27 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > This pull request completely breaks Intel wireless for me. > > This is my trusty old XPS 13 (9350), using Intel Wireless 8260 (rev 3a). > > That remains a very standard Intel machine with absolutely zero odd > things going on. > > The

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The firmware is iwlwifi-8000C-28.ucode from > iwl7260-firmware-25.30.13.0-75.fc26.noarch, and the kernel reports > > iwlwifi :3a:00.0: loaded firmware version 27.455470.0 op_mode iwlmvm And when I said

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:15 -0700 > This pull request completely breaks Intel wireless for me. > > This is my trusty old XPS 13 (9350), using Intel Wireless 8260 (rev 3a). > > That remains a very standard Intel machine with absolutely zero

Re: [GIT] Networking

This pull request completely breaks Intel wireless for me. This is my trusty old XPS 13 (9350), using Intel Wireless 8260 (rev 3a). That remains a very standard Intel machine with absolutely zero odd things going on. The firmware is iwlwifi-8000C-28.ucode from

Re: [GIT] Networking

(Adding linux-wireless) Pavel Machek writes: > On Thu 2017-08-31 07:44:58, Kalle Valo wrote: >> David Miller writes: >> >> > From: Kalle Valo >> > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300 >> > >> >> AFAICS the bug was introduced by

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Thu 2017-08-31 07:44:58, Kalle Valo wrote: > David Miller writes: > > > From: Kalle Valo > > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300 > > > >> AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug > >> has been there for 7 years so

Re: [GIT] Networking

David Miller writes: > From: Kalle Valo > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300 > >> AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug >> has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not >> hurt. > > As a

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Kalle Valo Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300 > AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug > has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not > hurt. As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that

Re: [GIT] Networking

David Miller writes: > From: Kalle Valo > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:45:31 +0300 > >> Pavel Machek writes: >> >>> Could we get this one in? >>> >>> wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init(). >>> >>>

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Kalle Valo Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:45:31 +0300 > Pavel Machek writes: > >> Could we get this one in? >> >> wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init(). >> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html >> >> It seems pretty trivial, yet

Re: [GIT] Networking

Pavel Machek writes: > Could we get this one in? > > wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init(). > > https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html > > It seems pretty trivial, yet getting the backtraces is not nice. It's in wireless-drivers-next and will be in 4.14-rc1:

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi! Could we get this one in? wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init(). https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html It seems pretty trivial, yet getting the backtraces is not nice. Thanks, Pavel -- (english)

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:21:16 -0700 > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:52 PM, David Miller wrote: >> >> dingtianhong (4): >> PCI: Disable PCIe Relaxed Ordering if unsupported >> PCI: Disable Relaxed Ordering for

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:52 PM, David Miller wrote: > > dingtianhong (4): > PCI: Disable PCIe Relaxed Ordering if unsupported > PCI: Disable Relaxed Ordering for some Intel processors > PCI: Disable Relaxed Ordering Attributes for AMD A1100 > PCI: fix

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 01:31:14PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > Acked-by: David S. Miller > > Looks good, is this going via my tree or your's? I'll push it along. Thanks. -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Herbert Xu Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:00:48 +0800 > crypto: af_alg - Avoid sock_graft call warning > > The newly added sock_graft warning triggers in af_alg_accept. > It's harmless as we're essentially doing sock->sk = sock->sk. > > The sock_graft call is

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 08:10:02AM -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > > The reason that the WARN_ON is triggered is that af_alg_accept() calls > sock_init_data() which does > >2636 if (sock) { > : >2639 sock->sk= sk; Oh yes. This started out with

Re: [GIT] Networking

On (07/10/17 18:05), Herbert Xu wrote: > > Hmm, I can't see the problem in af_alg_accept. The struct socket > comes directly from sys_accept() which creates it using sock_alloc. > > So the only thing I can think of is that the memory returned by > sock_alloc is not zeroed and therefore the

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 09:40:43PM +0100, David Miller wrote: > > > It look like PF_ALG sets up a ->sk in alg_create() (but this > > would get over-written in alg_accept()?) No it does not. The struct socket comes from sys_accept() and AFAICS it doesn't carry a struck sock with it. > > Cc'ing

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Sowmini Varadhan Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:11:31 -0400 > On (07/09/17 11:49), Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 3:36 AM, David Miller wrote: >> > >> > 8) Fix socket leak on accept() in RDS, from Sowmini Varadhan. Also >>

Re: [GIT] Networking

On (07/09/17 11:49), Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 3:36 AM, David Miller wrote: > > > > 8) Fix socket leak on accept() in RDS, from Sowmini Varadhan. Also > >add a WARN_ON() to sock_graft() so other protocol stacks don't trip > >over this as well.

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 3:36 AM, David Miller wrote: > > 8) Fix socket leak on accept() in RDS, from Sowmini Varadhan. Also >add a WARN_ON() to sock_graft() so other protocol stacks don't trip >over this as well. Hmm. This one triggers for me on both my desktop and

SIPHASH (was: Re: [GIT] Networking)

Hi Jason, On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:31 AM, David Miller wrote: > 3) Introduce SIPHASH and it's usage for secure sequence numbers and >syncookies. From Jason A. Donenfeld. > Jason A. Donenfeld (4): > siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF > siphash:

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: David Miller Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:26:56 -0500 (EST) > From: Linus Torvalds > Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:01:24 -0800 > >> So David, you really need to convince me that this pull is truly >> required. > > I'll revert those changes,

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:01:24 -0800 > So David, you really need to convince me that this pull is truly > required. I'll revert those changes, give me a second.

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:31 PM, David Miller wrote: > > 3) More gracefully handle rhashtable insertion errors when vmalloc is >not possible, from Herbert Xu. Ugh. So I pulled this, but when I look at his code, I'm really not sure that I should have, and I haven't

Re: [GIT] Networking

Thanks. Pulled, going through my usual allmodconfig test-build before being pushed out, Linus On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:22 AM, David Miller wrote: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git

Re: [GIT] Networking

David Miller writes: > From: Linus Torvalds > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:08:02 -0800 > >> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:38 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net >> >> Hmm.

Re: [GIT] Networking

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:38 PM, David Miller wrote: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net > > Hmm. This still doesn't contain the rtlwifi oops fix that was posted > back before christmas. > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:08:02 -0800 > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:38 PM, David Miller wrote: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net > > Hmm. This still doesn't contain the rtlwifi oops fix that was

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:38 PM, David Miller wrote: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net Hmm. This still doesn't contain the rtlwifi oops fix that was posted back before christmas. Kalle said it was applied to the wireless-drivers tree as commit

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Dave, On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:56:12 -0400 (EDT) David Miller wrote: > > Yes, this is where the change got lost. No worries. > I have all of the fixups queued up in my net tree and will send in a pull > request later. Thanks. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:51:52 +1100 > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:14:21 -0700 Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >> > >> > Except that commit

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Linus, On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:14:21 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > Except that commit effectively moved that function from > > net/netfilter/nf_tables_netdev.c to > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Except that commit effectively moved that function from > net/netfilter/nf_tables_netdev.c to > include/net/netfilter/nf_tables_ipv4.h while commit c73c24849011 > ("netfilter: nf_tables_netdev: remove redundant

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Linus, On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:37:17 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > I have been carrying the following merge fix patch (for the merge of > > the net-next tree with Linus'

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:09:45 +0200 > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:37:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >> > >> > I have been carrying the following merge fix patch

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:37:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > I have been carrying the following merge fix patch (for the merge of > > the net-next tree with Linus' tree) for a while now which seems to

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > I have been carrying the following merge fix patch (for the merge of > the net-next tree with Linus' tree) for a while now which seems to have > got missed: Ugh. It doesn't seem to be a merge error, because that

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Linus, Dave, On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:44:37 -0400 (EDT) David Miller wrote: > I have been carrying the following merge fix patch (for the merge of the net-next tree with Linus' tree) for a while now which seems to have got missed: From: Stephen Rothwell

Re: [GIT] Networking

On 5/19/16, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Reinoud Koornstra > wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Linus

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >>> >>> From what I can

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> From what I can tell, there's a merge bug in commit 909b27f70643, >> where David seems to have lost some of the

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:45:06 -0700 > David, do you happen to recall that merge conflict? I think you must > have removed that "skb_info" variable declaration and initialization > manually (due to the "unused variable" warning, which in turn

Re: [GIT] Networking

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> >> It would be best if you could send a patch either directly to Dave or >> Linus to resolve this quickly. > > I'm committing my patch myself right now, since

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 12:00 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Kalle Valo > wrote: > > > > > > It would be best if you could send a patch either directly to Dave > > or > > Linus to resolve this quickly. > I'm committing my patch myself right

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > It would be best if you could send a patch either directly to Dave or > Linus to resolve this quickly. I'm committing my patch myself right now, since this bug makes my laptop useless, and I will take credit for

Re: [GIT] Networking

"Coelho, Luciano" writes: > Kalle, David, what is the status with the fix that is on the way via > your trees? It would be best if you could send a patch either directly to Dave or Linus to resolve this quickly. -- Kalle Valo

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > From what I can tell, there's a merge bug in commit 909b27f70643, > where David seems to have lost some of the changes to > iwl_mvm_set_tx_cmd(). > > I do not know if that's the reason for the problem I

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 11:45 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Coelho, Luciano > wrote: > > > > > > I can confirm that 4.6 contains the same bug.  And reverting the > > patch > > I mentioned does solve the problem... > > > > The same patch

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > > I can confirm that 4.6 contains the same bug. And reverting the patch > I mentioned does solve the problem... > > The same patch works fine in our internal tree. I'll have to figure > out together with

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:51 -0600, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Coelho, Luciano > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:20 -0600, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Coelho, Luciano > > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:20 -0600, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Coelho, Luciano >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Emmanuel, Linus, >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 2016-05-18

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:20 -0600, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Coelho, Luciano > wrote: > > > > Hi Emmanuel, Linus, > > > > > > On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:37 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:00 AM,

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, Linus, > > > On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:37 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Emmanuel, Linus, On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 06:37 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM, David Miller > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Highlights: > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM, David Miller wrote: >> >> Highlights: > > Lowlights: > > 1) the iwlwifi driver seems to be broken > > My laptop that uses the intel 7680 iwlwifi module

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM, David Miller wrote: > > Highlights: Lowlights: 1) the iwlwifi driver seems to be broken My laptop that uses the intel 7680 iwlwifi module no longer connects to the network. It fails with a "Microcode SW error detected." and spews out

Re: [GIT] Networking

On 3/19/2016 6:42 AM, David Miller wrote: There is a merge conflict against the RDMA tree pull wrt the mlx4 driver, which I don't know how to resolve. Can you please point on the conflict ? is it still open that needs our input ?

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 09 2015, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 15:27, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> >> I agree - proper overflow checking can be really hard. Quick, assuming a >> and b have the same unsigned integer type, is 'a+b>

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hello, Ingo Molnar writes: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Does anybody have any particular other "uhhuh, overflow in multiplication" >> issues in mind? Because the interface for a saturating multiplication (or >> addition, for that matter)

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hello, Ingo Molnar writes: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Does anybody have any particular other "uhhuh, overflow in multiplication" >> issues in mind? Because the interface for a saturating multiplication (or >> addition, for that matter)

Re: [GIT] Networking

* Linus Torvalds wrote: > Does anybody have any particular other "uhhuh, overflow in multiplication" > issues in mind? Because the interface for a saturating multiplication (or > addition, for that matter) would actually be much easier. And would be > trivial

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi, On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 15:27, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28 2015, Hannes Frederic Sowa > wrote: > > > Hi Linus, > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Get rid of it. And I don't *ever* want to see that shit again. > > > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:27 AM, David Laight wrote: >> From: Linus Torvalds >> Sent: 03 November 2015 20:45 >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >> > result = add_overflow( >> > mul_overflow(sec,

RE: [GIT] Networking

> From: Linus Torvalds > Sent: 03 November 2015 20:45 > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > result = add_overflow( > > mul_overflow(sec, SEC_CONVERSION, ), > > mul_overflow(nsec, NSEC_CONVERSION, ), > > ); > > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hello, On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 03:38, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski > wrote: > > > > Based in part on an old patch by Sasha, what if we relied on CSE: > > > > if (mul_would_overflow(size, n)) > > return NULL; > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > And furthermore we don't actually have to rely on CSE if we want to, our > overflow checks could look much more simpler as in "ordinary" C code > because we tell the compiler that signed overflow is

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > result = add_overflow( > mul_overflow(sec, SEC_CONVERSION, ), > mul_overflow(nsec, NSEC_CONVERSION, ), > ); > > return overflow ? MAX_JIFFIES : result; Thinking more about

Re: [GIT] Networking

On 10/28/2015 02:39 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: I'm sorry, but we don't add idiotic new interfaces like this for idiotic new code like that. As one of the people who encouraged gcc to add this interface, I'll speak up in its favor: Getting overflow checking right in more complicated cases is

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> Getting overflow checking right in more complicated cases is a PITA. > > No it is not. Not for unsigned values. Just to clarify.

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hello, On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 22:30, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Andy

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> Getting overflow checking right in

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On 10/28/2015 02:39 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> I'm sorry, but we don't add idiotic new interfaces like this for >> idiotic new code like that. > > > As one of the people who encouraged gcc to add this interface, I'll

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > overflow_usub was part of a larger header I already prepared to offer > support for *all* overflow_* checking builtins. While fixing this IPv6 > bug I thought I could hopefully introduce this interface

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 13:30 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I'll stop making inane arguments if you stop bashing arguments I > didn't make. :) I said the helpers were useful for multiplication (by > which I meant both signed and unsigned) and, to a lesser extent, for > signed addition and

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Also how much of the problem is simply that the function signature > (naming and choice of arguments) just plain sucks ? Some of that is pretty much inevitable. C really has no good way to return

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The biggest problem - and where the compiler could actually help us - > tends to be multiplication overflows. We have several (not *many*, but > certainly more than just a couple) cases where we simply check

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Based in part on an old patch by Sasha, what if we relied on CSE: > > if (mul_would_overflow(size, n)) > return NULL; > do_something_with(size * n); I suspect we wouldn't even have to rely on CSE. Are these things

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: David Miller Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:19:41 -0700 (PDT) > This is the same as the previous pull request, with the ipv6 overflow > fix redone. The merge conflict is therefore gone too. ... > Please pull, thanks a lot. > > The following changes since commit

Re: [GIT] Networking

From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:39:56 +0900 > Get rid of it. And I don't *ever* want to see that shit again. No problem, I'll revert it all. I asked Hannes to repost his patches to linux-kernel hoping someone would review and say it stunk or not,

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Oct 28 2015, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Get rid of it. And I don't *ever* want to see that shit again. > > I don't want to give up on that this easily: > > In future I would like to see

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:32 PM, David Miller wrote: > > This may look a bit scary this late in the release cycle, but as is typically > the case it's predominantly small driver fixes all over the place. Christ people. This is just sh*t. The conflict I get is due to stupid

Re: [GIT] Networking

Hi Linus, On Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:32 PM, David Miller > wrote: > > > > This may look a bit scary this late in the release cycle, but as is > > typically > > the case it's predominantly small driver fixes all over the

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Sep 8 22:16, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > wrote: > > > > (Removed Linus and Andrew from the To, added Corinna ..) > > and resending again without HTML (sorry, thought I had HTML-emails > disabled by default) > > >

Re: [GIT] Networking

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > (Removed Linus and Andrew from the To, added Corinna ..) and resending again without HTML (sorry, thought I had HTML-emails disabled by default) > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:35 AM, David Miller

Re: [GIT] Networking

> On Sep 7, 2015, at 4:02 AM, David Laight wrote: > > Feed: > int bar(int (*f)[10]) { return sizeof *f; } > into cc -O2 -S and look at the generated code - returns 40 not 4. Yes, indeed it does. And with clang too. I guess I was too easily discouraged when looking for

RE: [GIT] Networking

From: Rustad, Mark D ... > >> static int smp_ah(struct crypto_blkcipher *tfm, const u8 irk[16], > >> const u8 r[3], u8 res[3]) > > > > Expect that it looks like you are passing arrays by value, > > but instead you are passing by reference. > > > > Explicitly pass by reference and

  1   2   >