From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.secunet.com (mx1.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) (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 CA133526AA3 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 10:44:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788950654; cv=none; b=S2pDRx4lETg5cDeEqkKRJdb9QR9sw0o6Wj3fnKm0W4t2ZNJ5DaOy+rZedS7wkLcVBPzpHzW/KACH2BA9bbKTWVMAoZNVq1JvnkMDHucOE3rv5TwrC9tESismRjDG0Ecg3JTZm6Oi6n4hOF+KeYrzixnaPJ4g1q0pdIRTaRoyxnc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788950654; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6E+kMr2lMBNGEqjwcL58hL7HxsxKflsZlGPjEvNauxU=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Y2mtIm0611R0WKhZ1IPgEb+9qKoCWQTf8/WFz5y7GQkreLxd87bboawK0TZffyfPd9vJcsCDgNQ7lvWunbYl1uaJBn9V2ynzM970UGtUMUQ4bAKjQgOz9avM3UHkT3ekm9v/BXAcdqOJcVNISwSNbCH/GfJgJ4/5jNMJ5lB/WeE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b=zhJdbnln; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b="zhJdbnln" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A554120704; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:44:09 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from mx1.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRirY_Cgs2Xt; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:44:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EXCH-01.secunet.de (rl1.secunet.de [10.32.0.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B35F20189; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:44:09 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com 1B35F20189 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1788950649; bh=5FsC7thW9XEqMEuGRuMRLMJQbQCVjE+Jjea+aYA+D2w=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=zhJdbnlnfIoU8QFZuivYerSM2hQXZivSDj6MM5E2wbGAcw6EP/vRxBzi5TM4rZlF3 t04Zglo8dWckbsmyAbI4Q+AbJSyzY555hHSCHj7zGtSF+mn44G/pwbYubjKzfLFHfi ZH/XuufCpl5jmO9GexvjFSUFSYyzpNvGN+G5E1u++ZOmCQbOY0/lzky6KbFk5E6duv oVRg/oiUIRDwxjVP1hadCekcGk3OCzdNc8vOshU0S6VqchInGUF5G4/v7rdqCrh9C5 7GB4/g1gS+HEahGPq3hhHBAad/IS0Ob2gnCiF72gNvFQTjK8hO55ZAQRA+ePDmXUoj hViGiXIKHSAww== Received: from secunet.com (10.182.7.193) by EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.37; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:44:08 +0200 Received: (nullmailer pid 351135 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 09 Sep 2026 10:44:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:44:08 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Paolo Abeni CC: David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Herbert Xu , Subject: Re: Some clarifications on the upstreaming process Message-ID: References: <20260907093020.2228346-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> <70d0048d-694b-4348-a6a5-de87a767b8fd@redhat.com> <83dd4915-e7a3-4c7e-91dd-adbea16450b3@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83dd4915-e7a3-4c7e-91dd-adbea16450b3@redhat.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: EXCH-02.secunet.de (10.32.0.172) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 12:34:42PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 9/9/26 12:23 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 11:23:56AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > >> On 9/9/26 8:38 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote: > >>> I need some clarifications on how to handle future ipsec patches. > >>> Since we have the AI-generated patches and patch reviews things > >>> changed quite a bit and I have problems to upstream ipsec fixes. > >>> > >>> I have the following problematic situations: > >>> > >>> 1) Sashiko found nothing in the original patch submisstion, > >>> but found an issue when I resent the patch with the pull > >>> request. I think this can be solved by asking the author > >>> to send an incremental fix on top of the ipsec tree if > >>> it does not happen too often. > >> > >> This is usually the correct approach, with some exceptions i.e. the > >> newly found issue is impactful (the new code is exploitable). > > > > Are you willing to pull this as is, or should I resend the pull > > request with the incremental fix? The latter leads to problem > > 4.1 (patch does not apply to net). > Due to time schedule I can't look into the series detail before tomorrow > my time. Since Jakub forwarded the AI report and left the series in PW I > assume he is looking for your replies to the AI comments - which is > pretty much would I'll do. It was a general question, not directly related to this pull request. There were several issues reported, it will take a bit of time to review the AI comments.