[GIT PATCH] Fixes in the -stable tree, but not in mainline
Greg KH
in your mainline tree. One of them is a security fix, so it probably
would be a good idea to get it into there :)
Please pull from:
rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/stable-2.6.git/
or from:
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/stable-2.6.git/
if it isn't synced up yet.
The full patch series will sent to the linux-kernel mailing list, if
anyone wants to see them.
thanks,
greg k-h
drivers/block/cciss.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
drivers/usb/storage/Kconfig | 3 -
fs/ext3/resize.c | 1
fs/partitions/check.c | 5 ++
ipc/shm.c | 2
5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
---------------
Ananiev, Leonid I:
ext3: Fix missed mutex unlock
Hugh Dickins:
shmat: stop mprotect from giving write permission to a readonly attachment (CVE-2006-1524)
Mike Miller:
cciss: bug fix for crash when running hpacucli
Randy Dunlap:
isd200: limit to BLK_DEV_IDE
Stephen Rothwell:
Fix block device symlink name
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Greg KH
Limit USB_STORAGE_ISD200 to whatever BLK_DEV_IDE and USB_STORAGE
are set to (y, m) since isd200 calls ide_fix_driveid() in the
BLK_DEV_IDE code.
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdu...@xenotime.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@suse.de>
---
drivers/usb/storage/Kconfig | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
66e0a9888b774af625ce544f7c6597c7506d07db
diff --git a/drivers/usb/storage/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/storage/Kconfig
index 92be101..be9eec2 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/storage/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/usb/storage/Kconfig
@@ -48,7 +48,8 @@ config USB_STORAGE_FREECOM
config USB_STORAGE_ISD200
bool "ISD-200 USB/ATA Bridge support"
- depends on USB_STORAGE && BLK_DEV_IDE
+ depends on USB_STORAGE
+ depends on BLK_DEV_IDE=y || BLK_DEV_IDE=USB_STORAGE
---help---
Say Y here if you want to use USB Mass Store devices based
on the In-Systems Design ISD-200 USB/ATA bridge.
--
1.2.6
Theodore Ts'o
> Here are 5 patches that are in the -stable tree, yet not currently fixed
> in your mainline tree. One of them is a security fix, so it probably
> would be a good idea to get it into there :)
I thought one of the requirements for accepting a patch into -stable
was that it was already in mainline. Was this a change in policy that
I missed, or just an oversight when we vetted these patches?
Not that I have anything against these patches, just curious in the
future if we should NACK patches proposed for -stable if we notice
that they aren't yet in mainline.
- Ted
Greg KH
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 02:29:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Here are 5 patches that are in the -stable tree, yet not currently fixed
> > in your mainline tree. One of them is a security fix, so it probably
> > would be a good idea to get it into there :)
>
> I thought one of the requirements for accepting a patch into -stable
> was that it was already in mainline. Was this a change in policy that
> I missed, or just an oversight when we vetted these patches?
>
> Not that I have anything against these patches, just curious in the
> future if we should NACK patches proposed for -stable if we notice
> that they aren't yet in mainline.
Sometimes some of these patches don't make it into Linus's tree because
they get lost in the shuffle (like the Kconfig one), or because they
were security issues that hit -stable first (like another one in there).
Either way, yes, the rule is that it should be in mainline, or in the
pipe to get into mainline (as was the 5 in this patchset.) I just
wanted to make sure they made it into there, and didn't get lost.
thanks,
greg k-h
Andrew Morton
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 12:06:10PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 02:29:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Here are 5 patches that are in the -stable tree, yet not currently fixed
> > > in your mainline tree. One of them is a security fix, so it probably
> > > would be a good idea to get it into there :)
> >
> > I thought one of the requirements for accepting a patch into -stable
> > was that it was already in mainline. Was this a change in policy that
> > I missed, or just an oversight when we vetted these patches?
> >
> > Not that I have anything against these patches, just curious in the
> > future if we should NACK patches proposed for -stable if we notice
> > that they aren't yet in mainline.
>
> Sometimes some of these patches don't make it into Linus's tree because
> they get lost in the shuffle (like the Kconfig one), or because they
> were security issues that hit -stable first (like another one in there).
>
> Either way, yes, the rule is that it should be in mainline, or in the
> pipe to get into mainline (as was the 5 in this patchset.) I just
> wanted to make sure they made it into there, and didn't get lost.
>
I had them queued up as well, but I'm being sluggish and Greg got there first.