From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Subject: Re: RFC: changed error code when binding unix socket twice Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:56:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20181107155644.GA29531@dell5510> References: <20170630073448.GA9546@unicorn.suse.cz> <20180831111436.GA23780@dell5510> <20181029163331.GA31059@dell5510> Reply-To: Petr Vorel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mkubecek@suse.cz, Networking , Cong Wang , rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , ltp@lists.linux.it, Cyril Hrubis , junchi.chen@intel.com, Dmitry Vyukov , Naresh Kamboju , Arnd Bergmann To: gregkh , David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi > I forgot that 4.1 has ended a while ago. Greg also sometimes still takes patches > for 3.18, so that might be a candidate aside from 3.18 Gregkh, David, does it make sense to you to merge commit 0fb44559ffd6 ("af_unix: move unix_mknod() out of bindlock") to 3.18? If yes, please do so. > > I guess we need to adjust LTP test to accept either return code as EOL longterm > > branches probably will not take this patch. > I'd argue that if we decide that EADDRINUSE is the intended return value, > it would be appropriate for LTP to warn about kernels that never got the > backport. > The alternative would be to not backport the patch further, and then change LTP > to no longer warn. Note that the bug that got fixed by the 0fb44559ffd6 patch > is probably more important than the return code, so I would say > we want the patch backported to anything that people still run anyway, > especially if they are running LTP to make sure it works correctly. > Arnd Kind regards, Petr