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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:38:04 -0400 From: Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@...il.com> To: Mike Manning <mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, sashal@...nel.org Subject: Re: Why revert commit 2271c95 ("vrf: mark skb for multicast or link-local as enslaved to VRF")? On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Mike Manning wrote: > To clarify, the regression in 4.14 only occurred when the commit was > used in isolation, not when applied with the rest of the series. > > It may be worth mentioning that we had been extensively using the series > in our local fork with 4.14 & 4.19 kernels before proceeding with > submitting the series and then switching to 5.x kernel, so that may be > an approach you can take. > Thanks Mike and David. Yes, I think it's best to use it in our local 4.14 fork. Regards, Stephen.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists