linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner tree

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: <440004449.28174.1698758033696.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:13:53 +0100 (CET)
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner
 tree

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
>> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
>> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
> 
> It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
> up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@...r.kernel.org asking them to
> backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
> kind of constraint, no?

I'm just in fear of stable rule #1.
"It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream)."

Anyway, I'll try.

Thanks,
//richard