linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/770] 5.10.220-rc1 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]

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:04:10 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, chuck.lever@...cle.com
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
	lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
	srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
	allen.lkml@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/770] 5.10.220-rc1 review

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:48:00AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 6/18/24 05:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.220 release.
> > There are 770 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 Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:32:00 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > 
> 
> [ ... ]
> > Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> >      SUNRPC: Prepare for xdr_stream-style decoding on the server-side
> > 
> The ChromeOS patches robot reports a number of fixes for the patches
> applied in 5.5.220. This is one example, later fixed with commit
> 90bfc37b5ab9 ("SUNRPC: Fix svcxdr_init_decode's end-of-buffer
> calculation"), but there are more. Are those fixes going to be
> applied in a subsequent release of v5.10.y, was there a reason to
> not include them, or did they get lost ?

I saw this as well, but when I tried to apply a few, they didn't, so I
was guessing that Chuck had merged them together into the series.

I'll defer to Chuck on this, this release was all his :)

thanks,

greg k-h