[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFkYtN3WK19iK0-d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:04:52 +0200
From: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 5.10,5.15 2/2] bpf: Fix L4 csum update on IPv6 in
CHECKSUM_COMPLETE
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > [ Upstream commit ead7f9b8de65632ef8060b84b0c55049a33cfea1 ]
> > [ Note: Fixed conflict due to unrelated comment change. ]
>
> This does not apply to the 5.15.y tree at all, due to:
>
> > - inet_proto_csum_replace_by_diff(ptr, skb, to, is_pseudo, false);
> > + inet_proto_csum_replace_by_diff(ptr, skb, to, is_pseudo, is_ipv6);
>
> This chunk.
>
> Can you fix that up and resend just this one?
It requires the 1/2 patch to apply correctly. I've tested them on the
tip of 5.15.y (1c700860e8bc). Or is there some reason not to backport
the 1/2 patch?
Paul
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists