linux-kernel - Re: [22/27] VFS: Fix automount for negative autofs dentries

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: <20111023114851.GA24676@kroah.com>
Date:	Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:48:51 +0200
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, stable-review@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [22/27] VFS: Fix automount for negative autofs dentries

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 07:41:18PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 08:24 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > 3.0-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> 
> Yes, as others point out, either the patch needs to be correctly
> backported or the dependent patches need to be pulled in.
> 
> I can do either of these, what would you prefer?

I'd prefer to take the dependant patches, as that would make things sync
up with what is in Linus's tree, I just wanted to get Miklos's and
David's acks that this is the way to go before I did it.

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/