net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.


Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948

(net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.


Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.


Normally net/ patches would come through DaveM, but he asked me for this one to submit it directly when i sent him the pull request.


First time stable request on my side here, let me know if I got something wrong.


regards

Stefan Schmidt

Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:22:18PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> 
> Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948
> 
> (net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.
> 
> 
> Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.
> 
> 
> Normally net/ patches would come through DaveM, but he asked me for this one to submit it directly when i sent him the pull request.
> 
> 
> First time stable request on my side here, let me know if I got something wrong.

Looks fine, I'll queue it up later this week in the next release after
these go out on Wednesday.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

[David Miller]

From: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:22:18 +0200

> Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948
> 
> (net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.
> 
> Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.
> 
> Normally net/ patches would come through DaveM, but he asked me for
> this one to submit it directly when i sent him the pull request.

Stable folks, please queue this up.

Thank you.

Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:22:18PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> 
> Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948
> 
> (net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.
> 
> 
> Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.

Really?  Commit f18fa5de5ba7 ("net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag
reassembly") says it fixes commit 648700f76b03 ("inet: frags: use
rhashtables for reassembly units") which did not show up until 4.17-rc1:
	$ git describe --contains 648700f76b03
	v4.17-rc1~148^2~20^2~11

Also, it did not get backported to 4.16.y, so I don't see how it is
needed in 4.16-stable.

To verify this, I tried applying the patch, and it totally fails to
apply to the 4.16.y tree.

So are you _sure_ you want/need this in 4.16?  If so, can you provide a
working backport that you have verified works?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello Greg.

On 17.05.2018 10:59, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:22:18PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>>
>> Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948
>>
>> (net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.
>>
>>
>> Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.
> 
> Really?  Commit f18fa5de5ba7 ("net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag
> reassembly") says it fixes commit 648700f76b03 ("inet: frags: use
> rhashtables for reassembly units") which did not show up until 4.17-rc1:
> 	$ git describe --contains 648700f76b03
> 	v4.17-rc1~148^2~20^2~11
> 
> Also, it did not get backported to 4.16.y, so I don't see how it is
> needed in 4.16-stable.

I guess its time to blush on my side. During the bisection for the
commit that introduced the problem I came to the point where it was
clear to me that it was already in 4.16. This was a while back I have
have honestly no idea how I did this mistake.

I tested again now with plain 4.16 and it works fine.
The fix is also in 4.17-rcX where it actually is needed. In the end I am
glad that it was not introduced and slipped me in an earlier release.

> To verify this, I tried applying the patch, and it totally fails to
> apply to the 4.16.y tree.
> 
> So are you _sure_ you want/need this in 4.16?  If so, can you provide a
> working backport that you have verified works?

No backport needed. I simply screwed up when verifying this for 4.16.
I put on the hat of shame for today and will try harder the next time.

Sorry to have wasted your time on this. :/

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:16:20PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello Greg.
> 
> On 17.05.2018 10:59, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:22:18PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948
> >>
> >> (net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.
> >>
> >>
> >> Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.
> > 
> > Really?  Commit f18fa5de5ba7 ("net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag
> > reassembly") says it fixes commit 648700f76b03 ("inet: frags: use
> > rhashtables for reassembly units") which did not show up until 4.17-rc1:
> > 	$ git describe --contains 648700f76b03
> > 	v4.17-rc1~148^2~20^2~11
> > 
> > Also, it did not get backported to 4.16.y, so I don't see how it is
> > needed in 4.16-stable.
> 
> I guess its time to blush on my side. During the bisection for the
> commit that introduced the problem I came to the point where it was
> clear to me that it was already in 4.16. This was a while back I have
> have honestly no idea how I did this mistake.
> 
> I tested again now with plain 4.16 and it works fine.
> The fix is also in 4.17-rcX where it actually is needed. In the end I am
> glad that it was not introduced and slipped me in an earlier release.
> 
> > To verify this, I tried applying the patch, and it totally fails to
> > apply to the 4.16.y tree.
> > 
> > So are you _sure_ you want/need this in 4.16?  If so, can you provide a
> > working backport that you have verified works?
> 
> No backport needed. I simply screwed up when verifying this for 4.16.
> I put on the hat of shame for today and will try harder the next time.

Hey, not a problem, thanks for verifying, 'git describe --contains' is
your friend :)

thanks,

greg k-h