On 09/26/2014, 12:50 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:34:20PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 09/25/2014, 06:52 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>> From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
>>>
>>> [ upstream commit 2627b7e15c5064ddd5e578e4efd948d48d531a3f ]
>>>
>>> commit 8f4e0a18682d91 ("IPVS netns exit causes crash in conntrack")
>>> added second ip_vs_conn_drop_conntrack call instead of just adding
>>> the needed check. As result, the first call still can cause
>>> crash on netns exit. Remove it.
>>>
>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.14.x
>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.12.x
>>
>> Thanks! Do I understand correctly (from the annotations), that 3.12
>> needs only:
>> 1/6 ipvs: avoid netns exit crash on ip_vs_conn_drop_conntrack
>> 3/6 ipvs: Maintain all DSCP and ECN bits for ipv6 tun forwarding
>> 5/6 ipvs: fix ipv6 hook registration for local replies
>> ?
>
> Yes. All patches that contain:
>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.12.x
>
> apply cleanly (according to my scripts) to 3.12 and I'll be happy if
> you take them.
>
> From this question, I suspect I misinterpreted
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
>
> I can include this in subject if you prefer so, but I will have to
> send the same patch several times for each -stable kernel this needs
> to be applied.
The way you send them is fine. I just wanted to be sure.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html