netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/3] bonding: restructure ad_churn

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260121171051.039110c3@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:10:51 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh
 <jv@...sburgh.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan
 <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Liang Li
 <liali@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/3] bonding: restructure ad_churn_machine

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:58:13 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >> My personal preference would be for 2/3 landing into net-next: the code
> >> looks correct to me, but refactor has IMHO still to much potential for
> >> regressions do land directly into net and the blamed commit is quite old.
> >>
> >> I suggested targeting net-next while retaining the Fixes tag as we
> >> already had complex fixes landing into net-next in the past.  
> > 
> > The appropriate way to delay propagation of the fix to add:
> > 
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks
> > 
> > not to merge things into -next.  
> 
> I went over the code as carefully as I could and I don't see any obvious
> problem, so I don't have a so strong opinion vs net, but to hopefully
> clarify: my thinking is that this is net-next material because it's an
> invasive refactor with behavior change. My preference would be let the
> code be tested in next/net-next for a while before landing into mainline.

From the patch description it look like user-trigger-able hang of 
the FSM. But if this is more of a resiliency improvement than a fix
then I'm perfectly fine with net-next. But then no Fixes tag and 
no stable at all, please.