netdev - Re: [regression 5.10.y] Libvirt can no longer delete macvtap devices after backport of a6cec0bcd342 ("net: rtnetlink: add bulk delete support flag") to 5.10.y series (Debian 11)

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: <d4b4a22e-c0cb-4e1f-8125-11e7a4f44562@leemhuis.info>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:19:16 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Roland Schwarzkopf <rschwarzkopf@...hematik.uni-marburg.de>,
 Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
 debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org, Ben Hutchings <benh@...ian.org>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 stable@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [regression 5.10.y] Libvirt can no longer delete macvtap devices
 after backport of a6cec0bcd342 ("net: rtnetlink: add bulk delete support
 flag") to 5.10.y series (Debian 11)

On 12/18/25 20:50, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> 
> Is there soemthing missing?
> 
> Roland I think it would be helpful if you can test as well more recent
> stable series versions to confirm if the issue is present there as
> well or not, which might indicate a 5.10.y specific backporting
> problem.

FWIW, it (as usual) would be very important to know if this happens with
mainline as well, as that determines if it's a general problem or a
backporting problem -- and the outcome, strictly speaking, determines if
the developers of the change in question or the stable team are
responsible. If we are lucky that distinction does not matter, but if we
are unlucky neither camp might look into this as of now. I wrote more
about this at length here:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/post/frequent-reasons-why-linux-kernel-bug-reports-are-ignored/

But yes, given that 5.10.y is quite old, it might be easier to test more
recent stable series first. But if they show the same problem, please
test mainline -- and ideally try if reverting is able to resolve the
problem.

Ciao, Thorsten