netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net 1/4] net: bonding: replace dev_trans_start() with the jiffies of the last ARP/NS

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: <e11a02756a3253362a1ef17c8b43478b68cc15ba.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 02 Aug 2022 19:33:52 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 1/4] net: bonding: replace dev_trans_start() with
 the jiffies of the last ARP/NS

On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 16:30 +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 09:11:10AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 11:05:19 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > In any case, this looks like a significative rework, do you mind
> > > consider it for the net-next, when it re-open?
> > 
> > It does seem like it could be a lot for stable.

I'm sorry, I did not intend to block the series. It looked to me there
was no agreement on this, and I was wondering if a net-next target
would allow a clean solution to make eveyone happy.

I now see it's relevant to have something we can queue for stable.

I'm ok with Jay suggestion:
> Alternatively, would it be more comfortable to just put this
> patch (1/4) to stable and not backport the others? 

The above works for me - I thought it was not ok for Jay, but since he
is proposing such sulution, I guess I was wrong.

Paolo