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: <20220802133342.1ac7531a@kernel.org>
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.