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, 14 Nov 2023 22:19:25 -0800
From: Anil Choudhary <>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <>,
 Bagas Sanjaya <>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
 Linux Networking <>,
 Linux Intel Wired LAN <>,
 Andy Gospodarek <>,
 Ivan Vecera <>,
 Jesse Brandeburg <>,
 Tony Nguyen <>,
 Eric Dumazet <>,
 Jakub Kicinski <>
Subject: Re: sr-iov related bonding regression (two regressions in one report)

Download attachment "PastedGraphic-1.png" of type "image/png" (265036 bytes)

Following error error scribing to said is also new

> On Nov 14, 2023, at 9:50 PM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <> wrote:
> On 15.11.23 01:54, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Bagas Sanjaya <> wrote:
>>> I come across LACP bonding regression on Bugzilla [1].
> Side note: Stephen forwards some (all?) network regressions to the right
> people:
> Would be best to check for that, no need to forward things twice, that
> just results in a mess.
>>> The reporter
>>> (Cc'ed) has two regressions. The first is actual LACP bonding
>>> regression (but terse):
>>>> Till linkx kernel 6.5.7 it is working fine, but after upgrading to 6.6.1 ping stop working with LACP bonding.
>>>> When we disable SR-IOV from bios , everything working fine
> Makes me wonder if things have been working with or without the OOT
> module on 6.5.7, as strictly speaking it's only considered a kernel
> regression if thing worked with a vanilla kernel (e.g. without OOT
> modules) beforehand and broke when switching to a newer vanilla kernel.
> If that's the case it would be okay to add to regzbot.
>>> And the second is out-of-tree module FTBFS:
>> [... skip OOT stuff ...]
>>> Should I add the first regression to regzbot (since the second one
>>> is obviously out-of-tree problem), or should I asked detailed regression
>>> info to the reporter?
>> 	My vote is to get additional information.  Given the nature of
>> the workaround ("When we disable SR-IOV from bios , everything working
>> fine"), it's plausible that the underlying cause is something
>> platform-specific.
> Maybe, but when it comes to the "no regressions" rule that likely makes
> no difference from Linus perspective.
> But I guess unless the intel folks or someone else has an idea what
> might be wrong here we likely need a bisection (with vanilla kernels of
> course) to get anywhere.
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
> --
> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists