netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: Return -ENETUNREACH if we can't create route but saddr is valid

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: <20191016205138.0c5a0058@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:51:38 +0200
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     walteste@....ethz.ch, bcodding@...hat.com, gsierohu@...hat.com,
        nforro@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: Return -ENETUNREACH if we can't create
 route but saddr is valid

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:51:50 +0200
> 
> > I think this should be considered for -stable, < 5.2  
> 
> Changes meant for -stable should not target net-next, but rather net.

Oh, sorry for that. I thought this would be the best way for patches
that are not strictly (or proven) fixes for net, but still make sense
for stable.

I generalised David Ahern's hint from a different case, I thought you
agreed (<20190618.092512.1610110055396742434.davem@...emloft.net>).

Resending for net now.

-- 
Stefano