Re: [SRU] [Noble] [PATCH 1/1] net: usb: usbnet: restore usb%d name exception for local mac addresses

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:30:58PM +0800, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> From: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@atmark-techno.com>
> 
> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2111592
> 
> commit 8a7d12d674ac ("net: usb: usbnet: fix name regression") assumed
> that local addresses always came from the kernel, but some devices hand
> out local mac addresses so we ended up with point-to-point devices with
> a mac set by the driver, renaming to eth%d when they used to be named
> usb%d.
> 
> Userspace should not rely on device name, but for the sake of stability
> restore the local mac address check portion of the naming exception:
> point to point devices which either have no mac set by the driver or
> have a local mac handed out by the driver will keep the usb%d name.
> 
> (some USB LTE modems are known to hand out a stable mac from the locally
> administered range; that mac appears to be random (different for
> mulitple devices) and can be reset with device-specific commands, so
> while such devices would benefit from getting a OUI reserved, we have
> to deal with these and might as well preserve the existing behavior
> to avoid breaking fragile openwrt configurations and such on upgrade.)
> 
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241203130457.904325-1-asmadeus@codewreck.org
> Fixes: 8a7d12d674ac ("net: usb: usbnet: fix name regression")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Tested-by: Ahmed Naseef <naseefkm@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@atmark-techno.com>
> Acked-by: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>
> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250326-usbnet_rename-v2-1-57eb21fcff26@atmark-techno.com
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> 
> (cherry picked from commit 2ea396448f26d0d7d66224cb56500a6789c7ed07)
> Signed-off-by: Jianlin Lv <iecedge@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

This is already in all stable kernel branches, why send it again?

confused,

greg k-h