On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 06:24:39PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:12:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 11:30:38AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > Hi Ailus, +Greg
> > >
> > > On 12/13/24 09:54, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > > Hi Michal,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 09:28:01AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > From: Sam Bobrowicz <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Light frequency was not properly returned when in auto
> > > > > mode and the detected frequency was 60Hz.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 19a81c1426c1 ("[media] add Omnivision OV5640 sensor driver")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sam Bobrowicz <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > That address is totally acceptable.
>
> The documentation (Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst) tells to
> use stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx nevertheless (we're not discussing the latter
> option here):
>
> To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion later automatically picked up
> for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area::
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Use ``Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities:
> it reduces the chance of accidentally exposing the fix to the public by way of
> 'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere.
Yes, either works. But to keep the "signal" of "hey, look, a security
bug!" down, feel free to use stable@xxxxxxxxxxx also everywhere just to
make the bad guys have to do more work :)
thanks,
greg k-h
