netdev - Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated

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: <20121019200318.GH17417@1wt.eu>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:03:18 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	bcrl@...ck.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [stable 2.6.32.y PATCH 0/6] net: fixes for cached dsts are never invalidated

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:01:04PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:55:57 +0200
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:49:30PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> 
> >> How about checking if these changes are already in 3.0/3.2/etc. or not
> >> before asking such questions?
> > 
> > Because I didn't find the patches in 3.0 and Ben said he backported them
> > from 3.6, I think these are two valid reasons to ask, no ?
> 
> Well, the thing is, I personally don't consider them appropriate for
> 3.x.y -stable backports, and that's why I haven't submitted them.

OK. Is is because the issue is less important there or because the fix are
more risky than the issues they fix (or any other reason) ?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html