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: <4c48269962dafbb641d5b0c38ec5b7bf951f3b4d.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:39:01 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "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, 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.

Thanks,

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ