On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:36:53AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:40:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:27:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:22:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:17:38PM +0200, pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > From: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > The patch "127f559 netfilter: ipset: fix timeout value overflow bug" > > > > > broke the SET target when no timeout was specified. > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Jean-Philippe Menil <jean-philippe.menil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > This patch requires: > > > > > > > > > > commit 127f559127f5175e4bec3dab725a34845d956591 > > > > > Author: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Date: Mon May 7 02:35:44 2012 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > netfilter: ipset: fix timeout value overflow bug > > > > > > > > > > Large timeout parameters could result wrong timeout values due to > > > > > an overflow at msec to jiffies conversion (reported by Andreas Herz) > > > > > > > > This patch doesn't apply to the 3.0.y series, care to provide a > > > > backport, and a backported version of the original patch above that > > > > needs it? > > > > > > Oh wait, should I apply the 3.0.y specific patches first? I'll go do > > > that and see if these two then apply here... > > > > Nope, doesn't apply. Care to backport both of these patches for 3.0.y > > and send them to us? > > I can send you the backport for 3.2 but not for 3.0. > > That fix is for one feature that was added in 3.1, so no way to make it > for 3.0 :-) Ah, ok, no worries then. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
