From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:22:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20121019202244.GH8315@kvack.org> References: <20121019195557.GG17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.160104.115897882147794932.davem@davemloft.net> <20121019200318.GH17417@1wt.eu> <20121019.160711.1159467896676133280.davem@davemloft.net> <20121019201430.GI17417@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , stable@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:44532 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754399Ab2JSUWo (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:22:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121019201430.GI17417@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:14:31PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: ... > So maybe in the end we should just merge d11a4dc18 that Ben found to be > the least invasive one fixing the issues, and we'd be in sync with the > rest of the stable branches, even if, as you noted a few days ago, it's > only a partial fix for the issue. > > Ben, what's your opinion on this ? I know it's never fun to do backports > and not merge them later, but I trust David more than anyone else on the > network part, so if he decided that while incomplete, the patch above > was all that was needed for other stable branches, maybe we should just > stay on the safe side and do the same ? There is a caveat to the minimally invasive fix: doing so will result in cached routes always being lookup up when the check occurs. This could potentially result in a performance regression from some users. The tradeoffs here are really murky. -ben -- "Thought is the essence of where you are now."