From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/12] bpf: More sock_ops callbacks
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:58:09 -0800
Message-ID: <1516813089.3715.22.camel@gmail.com>
References: <20180124075802.1522053-1-brakmo@fb.com>
         <1516803255.3715.16.camel@gmail.com>
         <7c73497a-19c3-bfa9-3a66-a1187d429c6d@fb.com>
         <1516808880.3715.20.camel@gmail.com>
         <083f1629-31f0-4903-2213-b98d7ebc3e84@fb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>, Blake Matheny <bmatheny@fb.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>, Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:38760 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S934356AbeAXQ6L (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:58:11 -0500
Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k19so3531283pfj.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:58:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <083f1629-31f0-4903-2213-b98d7ebc3e84@fb.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 08:48 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 1/24/18 7:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 07:27 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > 
> > > Most of the time, Yes, but it's the other way around this time.
> > > I specifically asked Larry to do it this way, since net tree is
> > > practically closed (only critical fixes allowed).
> > > When 4.15 is released on Sunday we'll send this patch
> > > independently to 4.15 and 4.14
> > > 
> > 
> > How hard would it be to put the fix first in the series then ?
> > If this proves complex, then maybe we have a bigger problem.
> 
> you mean to put patch 4 to be first in the series ?
> I don't think that matters. It applies fine as-is on net tree
> and builds without issues. I only need to double check that
> nothing else needed before adding it to stable queue.

Yes, this is exactly what we need.

We had a major issue with this bug, and we are lucky that we disabled
unpriv eBPF for other reasons.