mbox series

pull request (net): ipsec 2022-03-16

Message ID 20220316121142.3142336-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Commit 186abea8a80b7699a05bbe6cbd661d64f887e1a0
Headers show
Series pull request (net): ipsec 2022-03-16 | expand

Pull-request

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/klassert/ipsec.git master

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply

Message

Steffen Klassert March 16, 2022, 12:11 p.m. UTC
Two last fixes for this release cycle:

1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey.
   From Haimin Zhang.

2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr.
   From Sabrina Dubroca.

Please pull or let me know if there are problems.

Thanks!

The following changes since commit 5f147476057832b8f87461ff6da35b5d2e1c2c29:

  Merge branch 'selftests-pmtu-sh-fix-cleanup-of-processes-launched-in-subshell' (2022-03-09 20:23:38 -0800)

are available in the Git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/klassert/ipsec.git master

for you to fetch changes up to 4db4075f92af2b28f415fc979ab626e6b37d67b6:

  esp6: fix check on ipv6_skip_exthdr's return value (2022-03-14 11:42:27 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Haimin Zhang (1):
      af_key: add __GFP_ZERO flag for compose_sadb_supported in function pfkey_register

Sabrina Dubroca (1):
      esp6: fix check on ipv6_skip_exthdr's return value

 net/ipv6/esp6.c  | 3 +--
 net/key/af_key.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski March 16, 2022, 6:44 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:11:40 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> Two last fixes for this release cycle:
> 
> 1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey.
>    From Haimin Zhang.
> 
> 2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr.
>    From Sabrina Dubroca.

Excellent, thank you!

> Please pull or let me know if there are problems.

One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the
[PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches
under it. It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the
patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped
the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S
patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org March 16, 2022, 6:50 p.m. UTC | #2
Hello:

This pull request was applied to netdev/net.git (master)
by Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:11:40 +0100 you wrote:
> Two last fixes for this release cycle:
> 
> 1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey.
>    From Haimin Zhang.
> 
> 2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr.
>    From Sabrina Dubroca.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - pull request (net): ipsec 2022-03-16
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/186abea8a80b
  - [2/2] esp6: fix check on ipv6_skip_exthdr's return value
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/4db4075f92af

You are awesome, thank you!
Steffen Klassert March 19, 2022, 7:49 a.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:44:38AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:11:40 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > Two last fixes for this release cycle:
> > 
> > 1) Fix a kernel-info-leak in pfkey.
> >    From Haimin Zhang.
> > 
> > 2) Fix an incorrect check of the return value of ipv6_skip_exthdr.
> >    From Sabrina Dubroca.
> 
> Excellent, thank you!
> 
> > Please pull or let me know if there are problems.
> 
> One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the
> [PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches
> under it.

I did that in the ipsec-next pull request, let me know if this is
OK as I did it.

> It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the
> patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped
> the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S

I guess this is why I get always two mails from patchwork-bot for
each pull request. I already wondered why that happens :)
Jakub Kicinski March 19, 2022, 7:05 p.m. UTC | #4
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:49:11 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:44:38AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the
> > [PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches
> > under it.  
> 
> I did that in the ipsec-next pull request, let me know if this is
> OK as I did it.

Yes, that one worked out perfectly. Thanks!

> > It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the
> > patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped
> > the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S  
> 
> I guess this is why I get always two mails from patchwork-bot for
> each pull request. I already wondered why that happens :)

To be honest the pr handling in the patchwork-bot is not 100% accurate,
I wish it was responding to the pr / cover letter.  We'll get there :)