From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46701379 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 00:43:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0DDAC433EF; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 00:43:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1679704988; bh=VC4LrXIF04CB9UI3YL7KBxUU3Rgd8E+cXX5umTXNqcg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aKc3auWvJwwER8r1iZLbtkD18t/mdt2Ns/Dzn+6VHgL/hqq4bz0JyXR4FNCtszAut UXypxn5d1Uxuy42qx23BZAhsot2gYmlkN9ieRnq4Q1ZRF3aMWCa+zjqvogQri18tU5 0B3BBPrn9swc0amUR7LBi2i6w+d+XgCgRFrTaaYXysoHOBz8bgx1qYL9LX0u2UTZE/ Ad9gNL/MPsIrbw1/yIAETrfrYMgOddXYiIriIFOena+gdFF9siFNKTdDs26/uEvBtq LF7F4bykE2Vv69oahenGsYp2AEVRdRDuMb8u19ewHG0FHGSw0TNKs8ng16ej748nQR 2p+PiRBIK546g== Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:43:06 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Matthieu Baerts Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Paolo Abeni , stable@vger.kernel.org, mptcp@lists.linux.dev, Christoph Paasch , Jakub Kicinski Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 0/2] mptcp: Stable backports for v6.1 Message-ID: References: <20230323-upstream-stable-conflicts-6-1-v1-0-ef2a6180eaf3@tessares.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230323-upstream-stable-conflicts-6-1-v1-0-ef2a6180eaf3@tessares.net> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 06:49:00PM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: >Hi Greg, Sasha, > >Recently, 3 patches related to MPTCP have not been backported due to >conflicts: > > - 3a236aef280e ("mptcp: refactor passive socket initialization") > - b6985b9b8295 ("mptcp: use the workqueue to destroy unaccepted sockets") > - 0a3f4f1f9c27 ("mptcp: fix UaF in listener shutdown") > >Yesterday, Sasha has resolved the conflicts for the first one and he has >already added this one to v6.1. > >In fact, this first patch is a requirement for the two others. > >I then here resolved the conflicts for the two other patches, documented >that in each patch and ran our tests suite. Everything seems OK. > >Do you mind adding these two patches to v6.1 queue as well if you don't >mind? Queued up, thanks! -- Thanks, Sasha