netdev - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 075/130] net/lapb: fix t1 timer handling for LAPB_STATE

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]

Date:   Wed, 06 Jan 2021 08:33:04 +0100
From:   Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To:     Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 075/130] net/lapb: fix t1 timer handling for
 LAPB_STATE_0

On 2020-12-24 10:49, Xie He wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 9:01 AM Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think this patch is suitable for stable branches. This patch 
>> is
>> part of a patch series that changes the lapb module from "establishing 
>> the
>> L2 connection only when needed by L3", to "establishing the L2 
>> connection
>> automatically whenever we are able to". This is a behavioral change. 
>> It
>> should be seen as a new feature. It is not a bug fix.
> 
> Applying this patch without other patches in the same series will also
> introduce problems, because this patch relies on part of the changes
> in the subsequent patch in the same series to be correct.
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> It's better that we avoid using words like "fix" in non-bug-fix
> patches, and make every patch work on its own without subsequent
> patches. Otherwise we'll make people confused.

Yes, you are right.