linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] [RFC] ipv6: Fix for possible ipv6 seqlock deadlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1380304277.30872.31.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:51:17 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] [RFC] ipv6: Fix for possible ipv6 seqlock deadlock

On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 09:00 -0700, John Stultz wrote:

> 
> It seems as such, so I'll add stable on my next submission.

Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable.
   Should I request it via "stable@...r.kernel.org" like the references in
   the kernel's Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt file say?

A: No, not for networking.  Check the stable queues as per above 1st to see
   if it is already queued.  If not, then send a mail to netdev, listing
   the upstream commit ID and why you think it should be a stable candidate.

   Before you jump to go do the above, do note that the normal stable rules
   in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt still apply.  So you need to
   explicitly indicate why it is a critical fix and exactly what users are
   impacted.  In addition, you need to convince yourself that you _really_
   think it has been overlooked, vs. having been considered and rejected.

   Generally speaking, the longer it has had a chance to "soak" in mainline,
   the better the odds that it is an OK candidate for stable.  So scrambling
   to request a commit be added the day after it appears should be avoided.

--
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/