Re: [PATCH 6.12.y] bonding: fix use-after-free due to enslave fail after slave array update

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:52:34PM +0000, Yunseong Kim wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 5/5/26 14:35, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:30:48PM +0000, Yunseong Kim wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> On 5/4/26 14:05, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 10:12:05PM +0200, Yunseong Kim wrote:
> >>>> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >>>
> >>> I did NOT write this commit.
> >>>
> >>>> [ Upstream commit e9acda5 ]
> >>>
> >>> Please use the full commit id.  And get the authorship right :)
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> greg k-h
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for the code review. I’ll fix it and send a v2.
> >>
> >> Additionally, last week I submitted a few patches to the checkpatch.pl
> >> script—currently, all backport tags(following stable kernel rules
> >> Option 3) using <sha1 40 length> pattern are triggering false positives:
> >>
> >>   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260505112320.362715-2-yunseong.kim@est.tech/
> > 
> > Checkpatch should not be needed to be run on stable kernel backports, so
> > I don't really think that is necessary.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> While reading Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, I noticed that
> it doesn't explicitly mention the requirement for a full 40-character SHA-1 or
> the whether to use of checkpatch.pl for validation.

That's fine.

> Would it be good to adding these rule to the documentation? I believe            
> formalizing this could help contributors(like me :)) submit more accurate                  
> backport and reduce the need for manual corrections.

When you get a FAILED email, it provides full information on how to
create a backported patch.  is that list not sufficient?

thanks,

greg k-h