linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.2 000/135] 5.2.10-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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <93850e40-7df9-b5db-bda4-5b4354d2c3f3@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 24 Aug 2019 11:01:19 -0600
From:   shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.2 000/135] 5.2.10-stable review

On 8/24/19 9:33 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 09:21:53AM -0600, shuah wrote:
>> On 8/23/19 8:38 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:41:03PM -0600, shuah wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/19 11:05 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.2.10 release.
>>>>> There are 135 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 Sat 24 Aug 2019 05:07:10 PM UTC.
>>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>>>>>            https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-5.2.10-rc1.gz
>>>>
>>>> I am seeing "Sorry I can't find your kernels". Is this posted?
>>>
>>> Ah, Sasha didn't generate the patch but it was still listed here, oops.
>>> He copied my format and we didn't notice this, sorry about that.
>>>
>>> As the thread shows, we didn't generate this file this time to see what
>>> would happen.  If your test process requires it, we can generate it as I
>>> don't want to break it.
>>>
>>
>> It will make it lot easier for me to have continued support for patch
>> generation. My scripts do "wget" to pull the patch and apply.
> 
> Ok, we will get this back and working, sorry about that.
> 

Great. Thanks for accommodating my workflow.

thanks,
-- Shuah