netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bonding: pair enable_port with slave_arr

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: <20220207090343.3af1ff59@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 09:03:43 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) " <maheshb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bonding: pair enable_port with
 slave_arr_updates

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 21:52:11 -0800 Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 7:59 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Quacks like a fix, no? It's tagged for net-next and no fixes tag,
> > is there a reason why?  
> 
> Though this fixes some corner cases, I couldn't find anything obvious
> that I can report as "fixes" hence decided otherwise. Does that make
> sense?

So it's was not introduced in the refactorings which added
update_slave_arr? If the problem existed forever we can put:

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")

it's just an indication how far back the backporting should go.
For anything older than oldest LTS (4.9) the exact tag probably
doesn't matter all that much.