netdev - Re: [PATCH net 00/13] Mellanox 100G mlx5 resiliency and xmit path fixes

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]

Message-Id: <20160701.061449.151195686797738506.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jul 2016 06:14:49 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	saeedm@...lanox.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ogerlitz@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 00/13] Mellanox 100G mlx5 resiliency and xmit path
 fixes

From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:34:37 +0300

> This series provides two set of fixes to the mlx5 driver:
> 	- Resiliency fixes for reset flow and internal pci errors
> 	- xmit path fixes

Series applied to 'net' but expecting all of this to be backported
to -stable is unreasonable.

PCI error paths, chip resets, timeout handling, etc. and some
non-trivial changes.  This is not appropriate for -stable at all.

What's relevant for -stable is operational bug fixes for issues
users will hit in regular operation.

And yes this is partially my own interpreation of what is appropriate
for -stable.

But if I were to set the precendence of adding all of these to -stable
it means people will then be able to request similar things in other
drivers.  We want to avoid having too much grey area stuff backported
to -stable, there are too many changes going through -stable already.