On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:22:25AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 10-10-12 16:37:23, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:10:01PM -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > please consider adding the commit in subject, "udf: fix retun value on > > > error path in udf_load_logicalvol" (commit 68766a2), to the stable > > > versions in the subject, since it is a bug fix related with the > > > following two changes included in them: > > > > > > udf: Avoid run away loop when partition table length is corrupted > > > commit adee11b2085bee90bd8f4f52123ffb07882d6256 upstream. > > > > But this showed up in 3.4, so why would the patch be applicable to older > > kernels than that? > > > > > udf: Fortify loading of sparing table > > > commit 1df2ae31c724e57be9d7ac00d78db8a5dabdd050 upstream. > > > > This shows up in 3.5. > > > > So I'm confused, why would we want 68766a2 in 3.4? and 3.2 and 3.0? > Well, but both of the above patches (i.e. > adee11b2085bee90bd8f4f52123ffb07882d6256 and > 1df2ae31c724e57be9d7ac00d78db8a5dabdd050) were included in 3.2.23 (I didn't > check 3.0-stable) so including 68766a2 in 3.2-stable makes sense as well.
The same case for 3.4 and 3.0, the commits were included in stable updates: adee11b2085bee90bd8f4f52123ffb07882d6256 1df2ae31c724e57be9d7ac00d78db8a5dabdd050 went in 3.0.37, 3.4.5 that's why I included all of them, they had the commits either "natively" or later through stable updates. > > > 3.5 is EOL after this next release, so is it worth adding it to just > > that tree now? > Regarding 3.5-stable, I'm not decided. It's not really *that* serious > issue... > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <[email protected]> > SUSE Labs, CR > -- []'s Herton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
