netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero

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, 22 Nov 2022 15:45:35 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
Cc:     Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when
 updelay is nonzero

On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:36 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves
> > > lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the
> > > expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond
> > > currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1
> > > paragraph 4.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
> > 
> > Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to
> > the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag?
> > 
> > Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree.
> > 
> 
> I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted 
> the net-next tree.

When in doubt I think it's preferrable to point out a commit surely
affected by the issue - even if that is possibly not the one
introducing the issue - than no Fixes as all. The lack of tag will make
more difficult the work for stable teams.

In this specific case I think that:

Fixes: 41f891004063 ("bonding: ignore updelay param when there is no active slave")

should be ok, WDYT? if you agree would you mind repost for -net?

Thanks,

Paolo