On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:41:46PM +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote: > Hi Greg, Al, > > The patch that went into mainline and was cc'ed to stable assumes that > 2cf09666 "make SYSCALL_DEFINE<n>-generated wrappers do > asmlinkage_protect... and switch i386 to HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS, > killing open-coded uses of asmlinkage_protect() in a bunch of > syscalls." is also included. I think my original patch would be better > suited for the stable tree? It's tiny, independent, and it fixes the > issue. See attached patch... Al, what do you think? > > Also: please note that the problem was introduced in v3.9, so this is > the only stable tree that should get this patch. I really don't understand, should I not have included this patch in the 3.9-stable tree? Should I use something else instead? If so, what is the git commit id? Or should I add something on top of this one? totally confused, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html