Re: [PATCH-next v2 0/2] ipvs: Fix incorrect use of HK_TYPE_KTHREAD housekeeping cpumask

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 05:15:50PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
>       Hello,
> 
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2026, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> >  v2:
> >   - Rebased on top of linux-next
> > 
> > Since commit 041ee6f3727a ("kthread: Rely on HK_TYPE_DOMAIN for preferred
> > affinity management"), the HK_TYPE_KTHREAD housekeeping cpumask may no
> > longer be correct in showing the actual CPU affinity of kthreads that
> > have no predefined CPU affinity. As the ipvs networking code is still
> > using HK_TYPE_KTHREAD, we need to make HK_TYPE_KTHREAD reflect the
> > reality.
> > 
> > This patch series makes HK_TYPE_KTHREAD an alias of HK_TYPE_DOMAIN
> > and uses RCU to protect access to the HK_TYPE_KTHREAD housekeeping
> > cpumask.
> > 
> > Waiman Long (2):
> >   sched/isolation: Make HK_TYPE_KTHREAD an alias of HK_TYPE_DOMAIN
> >   ipvs: Guard access of HK_TYPE_KTHREAD cpumask with RCU
> 
>       The patchset looks good to me for nf-next, thanks!
> 
> Acked-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
> 
>       Pablo, Florian, as a bugfix this patchset missed
> the chance to be applied before the changes that are in
> nf-next in ip_vs.h, there is little fuzz there. If there
> is no chance to resolve it somehow, we can apply it
> on top of nf-next where it now applies successfully.

One way to handle this is to follow up with nf-next as you suggest,
then send a backport that applies cleanly for -stable once it is
released.

Else, let me know if I am misunderstanding.