linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] r8152: add vendor/device ID pair for Microsoft Devkit

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:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:56:59 +0000
From:   Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] r8152: add vendor/device ID pair for Microsoft
 Devkit

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:39:01 +0100
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:

Hi,

> On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 10:51 +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:31:43 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:  
> > > Hm, we have a patch in net-next which reformats the entries:
> > > ec51fbd1b8a2bca2948dede99c14ec63dc57ff6b
> > > 
> > > Would you like this ID to be also added in stable? We could just 
> > > apply it to net, and deal with the conflict locally. But if you 
> > > don't care about older kernels then better if you rebase.  
> > 
> > Stable would be nice, but only to v6.1. I think I don't care
> > about older kernels.
> > So what about if I resend this one here, based on top of the reformat
> > patch, with a:
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 6.1.x
> > line in there, and then reply to the email that the automatic backport
> > failed, with a tailored patch for v6.1?
> > Alternatively I can send an explicit stable backport email once this one
> > is merged.  
> 
> Note that we can merge this kind of changes via the -net tree. No
> repost will be needed. We can merge it as is on -net and you can follow
> the option 2 from the stable kernel rules doc, with no repost nor
> additional mangling for stable will be needed.
> 
> If you are ok with the above let me know.

That sounds good to me, but that will then trigger a merge conflict when
net-next (with the reformat patch) is merged? I guess it's easy enough to
solve, but that would be extra work on your side. If you are fine with
that, it's OK for me.

Thanks,
Andre