linux-kernel - Re: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/1/531

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 May 2013 21:35:11 +0200
From:	Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian Wiessner 
	<f.wiessner@...rt-weblications.de>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, liquidhorse@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
	fubar@...ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...hat.com, vfalico@...hat.com
Subject: Re: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/1/531

Hi Greg,

Am 22.05.2013 21:06, schrieb Greg KH:> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:16:25PM +0200,
Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian Wiessner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Am 22.05.2013 18:23, schrieb Greg KH:
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:16:11PM +0200, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian
Wiessner wrote:
>>>> Am 22.05.2013 15:57, schrieb Greg KH:
>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:36:09PM +0200, Smart Weblications GmbH -
Florian Wiessner wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why is this patch still not backported to 3.4?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I today tried 3.4.46 from kernel.org, but the patch STILL seems _NOT_
included?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHY IS THAT?
>>>>>
>>>>> <formletter>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
>>>>> stable kernel tree.  Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
>>>>> for how to do this properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> </formletter>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to submit a patch - i wanted to know why this patch still is
not in
>>>> the kernel (it is afaics at least 6 months old!)
>>>
>>> Perhaps because it was not submitted properly as documented above?
>>>
>>
>> Well, i don't know. I have not written that patch, but tested and applied it
>> against 3.4.36 where it worked fine.
>>
>> But i am unable to apply it to 3.4.46 (there are rejects if i try to apply it,
>> obviously because there were changes in the meanwhile) - It would be cool if
>> someone could tell if that patch is really needed anymore with 3.4.46.
>>
>> I am no C coder and only have little C experience, but i'd like to use this
>> patch with current 3.4 stable Kernel or at least make sure that this patch is
>> not needed anymore with current stable kernels...
>
> Why do you think that it is needed?  And does it match up to a specific
> change that is already in Linus's tree?  That is a requirement here.
>

It is needed, because without it (at least in 3.4.36) virtualized guests
(kvm/qemu) are unable to use br0 (bridge) if the bridge uses a bond with mode 6
(balance-alb).

https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/net-next/+/567b871e503316b0927e54a3d7c86d50b722d955%5E!/

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1302.0/00539.html


Thanks,

-- 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Florian Wiessner

Smart Weblications GmbH
Martinsberger Str. 1
D-95119 Naila

fon.: +49 9282 9638 200
fax.: +49 9282 9638 205
24/7: +49 900 144 000 00 - 0,99 EUR/Min*
http://www.smart-weblications.de

--
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Naila
Geschäftsführer: Florian Wiessner
HRB-Nr.: HRB 3840 Amtsgericht Hof
*aus dem dt. Festnetz, ggf. abweichende Preise aus dem Mobilfunknetz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/