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: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:33:42 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....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, 02 Aug 2022 13:24:34 -0700 Jay Vosburgh wrote: > >One more time, sorry :) If I'm reading things right Vladimir and > >I would like this to be part of 5.20, Paolo is okay with that, > >Jay would prefer to delay it until 5.21. > > > >Is that right? > > I'm sure there's an Abbott & Costello joke in here somewhere, > but I thought Paolo preferred net-next, and I said I was ok with that. :D > >My preference for 5.20 is because we do have active users reporting > >problems in stable, and by moving to 5.21 we're delaying things by > >2 weeks. At the same time, 5.20 vs 5.21 doesn't matter as we intend > >to hit stable users with these change before either of those is out. > > I have no objection to 5.20 if you & Paolo don't object. > > For stable, I believe that 1/4 (and 4/4 for docs) is the minimum > set to resolve the functional issues; is the plan to send all 4 patches > to stable, or just 1 and 4? 1 & 4 for stable SGTM. > I do think this patch does widen the scope of failures that may > go undetected on the TX side, but most of the time the failure to > receive the ARP on the RX side should cover for that. Regardless, > that's a concern for later that doesn't need to be hashed out right now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists