linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.8 00/57] 4.8.4-stable review

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <10504414.asNck97anh@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:   Sun, 23 Oct 2016 02:04:41 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        shuah.kh@...sung.com, patches@...nelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.8 00/57] 4.8.4-stable review

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 11:58:51 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:02:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 11:17:23 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.8.4 release.
> > > There are 57 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > > 
> > > Responses should be made by Sun Oct 23 09:14:19 UTC 2016.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > 
> > Please also add commit c6fe46a79ecd "cpufreq: fix overflow in
> > cpufreq_table_find_index_dl()" to this series.
> > 
> > This is needed to fix a regression in an earlier somewhat broken fix that went
> > into previous 4.8.y unfortunately.
> 
> Really?  It doesn't apply to 4.8-stable at all.  I haven't applied
> 899bb6642f2a2f2cd3f77abd6c5a14550e3b37e6 to the 4.8-stable tree yet,

OK

In that case please make sure that it doesn't go in without c6fe46a79ecd.

> so why should I add it at this point in time?

Clearly, no need. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael