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]

Date:   Tue, 02 Aug 2022 22:34:39 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     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, 2022-08-02 at 13:24 -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 11:00:41 -0700 Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> > > > > 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.  
> > > 
> > > 	My original reluctance was that I hadn't had an opportunity to
> > > sufficiently review the patch set to think through the potential
> > > regressions.  There might be something I haven't thought of, but I think
> > > would only manifest in very unusual configurations.
> > > 
> > > 	I'm ok with applying the series to net-next when it's available,
> > > and backporting 1/4 for stable (and 4/4 with it, since that's the
> > > documentation update).
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
> > 
> > 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,

At least not intentionally, not on my side! :)

> but I thought Paolo preferred net-next, and I said I was ok with that.

I initially suggested net-next, but then I agreed for a minimal fix for
net.

> > 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.

I also don't have objection for 5.20 (6.0)

> 	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?

I think that for stable 1 && 4 only would be the better option.

Cheers,

Paolo