Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 7

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi all,

Changes since 20130806:

The ext4 tree lost its build failure.

The mvebu tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
next-20130806.

The akpm tree gained conflicts against the ext4 tree.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ CC some netdev and wireless folks ]

Yesterday, I discovered an issue with net-next.
The patch in [1] fixed the problems in my network/wifi environment.
Hannes confirmed that virtio_net are solved, too.
Today's next-20130807 still needs it for affected people.

- Sedat -

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137582524017840&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137583048219416&w=2
[3] http://marc.info/?t=137579712800008&r=1&w=2

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:29:18AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi all,

Changes since 20130806:

The ext4 tree lost its build failure.

The mvebu tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
next-20130806.

The akpm tree gained conflicts against the ext4 tree.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ CC some netdev and wireless folks ]

Yesterday, I discovered an issue with net-next.
The patch in [1] fixed the problems in my network/wifi environment.
Hannes confirmed that virtio_net are solved, too.
Today's next-20130807 still needs it for affected people.

- Sedat -

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137582524017840&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137583048219416&w=2
[3] http://marc.info/?t=137579712800008&r=1&w=2

Could you please try the attached patch. It limits parsing the ethernet
header (by calling eth_type_trans()) to cases when the configured
protocol is ETH_P_ALL, so at least for 802.1X this should fix the
problem.

The idea behind this patch is that users setting the protocol to
something else probably do know better and so should be left alone.

Best wishes, Phil

On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 17:59 +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:

The idea behind this patch is that users setting the protocol to
something else probably do know better and so should be left alone.

Regardless of that, I think that still the skb pointers would be changed
by this patch which would confuse the receiver of the SKB (device
driver), no? Has anyone verified that theory? :)

johannes

On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 18:12 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:

On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 17:59 +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:

quoted

The idea behind this patch is that users setting the protocol to
something else probably do know better and so should be left alone.

Regardless of that, I think that still the skb pointers would be changed
by this patch which would confuse the receiver of the SKB (device
driver), no? Has anyone verified that theory? :)

Maybe receivers made wrong assumptions about some headers being set or
not set ?

A patch can uncover prior bugs.

commit 76fe45812a3b134c3917 is an example of a fix we had to do because
of another fix ;)