netdev - Re: Stable Backport: net: Avoid address overwrite in kernel

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: <CADKFtnQpD_LKDMZM8qoJF94m40+cP46--eqjhuu0LV8RobmsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:34:49 -0700
From: Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Stable Backport: net: Avoid address overwrite in kernel_connect

Oops, my mistake. Sorry for the mixup! In that case, I will

> send an email to stable@...r.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID, why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to be applied to.

as option 2 suggests.

-Jordan

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:26 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 01:09:04PM -0700, Jordan Rife wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > Sorry if I've misunderstood. The netdev FAQ
> > (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/networking/netdev-FAQ.html#q-i-see-a-network-patch-and-i-think-it-should-be-backported-to-stable)
> > seemed to indicate that I should send network backport requests to
> > netdev.
>
> 5.7 is a very old kernel version, please use the documentation from the
> latest kernel version.
>
> You can use "latest" instead of "v5.7" there.
>
> > I saw "option 2" in
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> > which reads
> >
> > > send an email to stable@...r.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID, why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to be applied to.
> >
> > Would "option 3" listed there be preferred?
>
> What's wrong with option 2?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h