linux-kernel - Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110929233902.GA5969@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:39:02 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [159/244] ipc/mqueue.c: fix mq_open() return value

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:31:41PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Sorry, I ment Linus's tree, that's where it matters for the stable
> > releases.
> 
> The patch in question hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, but it's queued up
> in Stephen Rothwell's for-next tree.  As I understand it, Andrew's
> tree gets fed into that on a somewhat regular basis, and Andrew took
> my four patches (plus a patchcheck fixup he committed) already.  So, I
> pulled Stephen's for-next, put my patches plus the patchcheck fix on
> top, then wrote a fixup patch that fixes what I saw as being wrong in
> the patch in question.
> 
> > Ok, care to get the patch into Linus's tree and then I can take it
> > into
> > stable?
> 
> I made a new patch that fixes the patch I NAKed.  My entire patch set
> can be applied on top of his now (I was wrong about them conflicting,
> I think there was just enough space for the context not to overlap in
> a way that would conflict as I thought it would).  So, since the
> change isn't life threatening or anything, and can be easily fixed up,
> I'll withdraw my NAK and just submit the additional patch to correct
> it once I get home and have access to a mail program that does
> something besides attachments or mangled text as the only patch
> sending options.
> 
> Now, the question of whether or not you want a patch in -stable that
> hasn't hit Linus' tree yet is up to you...

Sorry, I can't do that, it's against the rules for -stable (see
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt).

Just get your patch into Linus's tree soon, and all should be good,
right?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/