linux-kernel - Re: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:00:21 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
Subject: Re: [41/42] xfs: validate acl count

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:41:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:48:51PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > 3.1-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> Just curious, how well tested are all the patches on 2.6.32 and 3.1 hat I only
> submitted for 3.0?  I'd really prefer if they at least get an xfstest run
> before they get sent out to the world.

I took these patches on my own as they were reported to fix a public
vulnerability which was assigned a CVE.  They applied with no fuzz and
"looked correct" so I applied them on my own.

If I shouldn't have, please let me know and I'll drop them.

Otherwise, a nice run of xfstest by someone would be appreciated.

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/