Am 06.03.2015 um 03:04 schrieb Brian Norris: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 11:33:14AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Brian, >> >> Am 28.02.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Brian Norris: >>> Except for the last one, these were inspired by Coverity Scan results. >>> >>> These fixes have barely been tested, but they are pretty straightforward >>> logically. As they've been sitting in my dust pile too long, I thought I'd at >>> least get them out there. >>> >>> Brian Norris (5): >>> UBI: account for bitflips in both the VID header and data >>> UBI: fix out of bounds write >>> UBI: initialize LEB number variable >>> UBI: fix check for "too many bytes" >>> UBI: align comment for readability >> >> Nice work! >> I'll test them later today. >> Just a quick question, no patch has a stable tag, is this by design? >> From a first look most of them look like stable material. > > Two reasons: > > 1. I hadn't tested them heavily, and I definitely didn't try to target > their codepaths much. > > 2. Given #1 and the fact that these were just found by static analysis, > I don't think they pass this test from > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: > > " - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a > problem..." type thing)." > > So, I expected they would only be sent to stable if somebody (perhaps > me) is able to trigger something real, or at least gets some significant > testing on them. > > Maybe this is a case where you send the fixes, and then send the commit > IDs to Greg after they have been proven stable and/or can be exploited > in some way through testing. (Option 2 in the updated > stable_kernel_rules.txt.) > > But really, it's your/Artem's call. Applied, thanks a lot Brian! I've marked patches 1 to 4 as stable material. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
