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

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

[Yunseong Kim]

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/

Best regards,
Yunseong

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

[Greg KH]

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

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

[Yunseong Kim]

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.

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.

Thank you again.

Best regards,
Yunseong

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

[Greg KH]

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

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

[Yunseong Kim]

Thank you Greg,

On 5/5/26 15:04, Greg KH wrote:
> 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 for the feedback. It is really helpful. You're right. the information
provided in the emails is sufficient. I'll make sure to follow those
instructions more carefully for future backports work.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify.

Best regards,
Yunseong