From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:60662 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751530AbeBBJhK (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2018 04:37:10 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:37:07 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Wang Han Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: A question about commit 6c16fa backported in 3.18.93 Message-ID: <20180202093707.GB15060@kroah.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:58:02AM +0800, Wang Han wrote: > Hello, I am not familiar with Linux mailing, sorry for this. > > I am writing this mail because I am not sure about commit > 6c16fa957e84c8b640dadc4e0264ff0d2dae7aa3 added in 3.18.93. > > That backport made the arp.h changes in struct __ipv4_neigh_lookup(), > but compared with upstream commit, I think that 3 lines should be > added in __ipv4_neigh_lookup_noref(), as I go through the context. > Also the latter would be called unconditionally if former is called so > it would cover more cases. > > Could you please check this and let me know? Though it would 90% be my derp. You might be right, I did the backport of this by hand, and odds are I got it wrong. Thanks for checking this and finding the issue. Could you send me a patch to fix this up so I can apply it to the next 3.18.y release and give you the proper credit for it? thanks, greg k-h