On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 12:54:04PM +0800, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > > On 4/6/26 11:47 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > This Fixes: tag covers the SOCK_OPS_GET_SK() portion of the fix, > > since 84f44df664e9 introduced that macro. However, the identical > > bug in SOCK_OPS_GET_FIELD() was introduced by an earlier commit: > > > > fd09af010788 ("bpf: sock_ops ctx access may stomp registers in corner > > case") > > > > That commit added the dst_reg == src_reg handling to > > SOCK_OPS_GET_FIELD() with the same missing zeroing in the > > !fullsock path. Should this also carry: > > > > Fixes: fd09af010788 ("bpf: sock_ops ctx access may stomp registers in > > corner case") > > > > Without it, kernels that have fd09af010788 but not 84f44df664e9 > > would not receive the SOCK_OPS_GET_FIELD() fix via stable backport. > > > > > > --- > > AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a > > bug. > > See:https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md > > > > CI run > > summary:https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/24017481706 > Well, it's true. However, fd09af010788 and 84f44df664e9 are from the > same patchset (same author, same minute), so any stable branch carrying > one will have both. That's why I only included a single Fixes tag. > > But if you prefer carrying both explicitly, I'm happy to add it in next > version.
Please list both in the Fixes tags so that it is clear both bugs will be fixed. Thanks.
