netdev - Re: [RFC net 1/2] netdev-genl: Hold rcu_read_lock in napi

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: <20241112180102.465dd909@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:01:02 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
 amritha.nambiar@...el.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
 mkarsten@...terloo.ca, stable@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Mina Almasry
 <almasrymina@...gle.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net 1/2] netdev-genl: Hold rcu_read_lock in napi_get

On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:48:42 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> Sorry for the noob question: should I break it up into two patches
> with one CCing stable and the other not like I did for this RFC?
> 
> Patch 1 definitely "feels" like a fixes + CC stable
> Patch 2 could be either net-next or a net + "fixes" without stable?

Oh, sorry, I didn't comment on that because that part is correct.
The split is great, will make backporting easier.