Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next V2 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-10-19

From: Saeed Mahameed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:44:10 -0700

On 26 Oct 15:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:26:01 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> When I sent V1 I stripped the fixes tags given that I know this is not an
>> actual bug fix but rather a missing feature, You asked me to add Fixes
>> tags when you know this is targeting net-next, and I complied in V2.
>>
>> About Fixes tags strict policy in net-next, it was always a controversy,
>> I thought you changed your mind, since you explicitly asked me to add the
>> Fixes tags to a series targeting net-next.
>
>Sorry, I should have been clearer, obviously the policy did not change.
>I thought you'd know what to do.
>
>> I will submit V3, with Fixes tags removed, Please accept it since Leon
>> and I agree that this is not a high priority bug fix that needs to be
>> addressed in -rc7 as Leon already explained.
>
>Patches 3 / 4 are fairly trivial. Patch 7 sounds pretty scary,
>you're not performing replay validation at all, IIUC.
>Let me remind you that this is an offload of a security protocol.
>
>BTW I have no idea what "ASO syndrome" is, please put more effort
>into commit messages.

ASO stands for (Advanced Steering Operations), it handles the reply
protection and in case of failure it provides the syndrome, yes I agree the
commit message needed some work.

Now given the series is focused on reworking the whole reply protection
implementation and aligning it with user expectation, and the complexity of
the patches, I did agree to push it to net-next as the cover letter
claimed, I am not sure what the severity of this issue in terms of
security, so I will let Leon decide.