Hi John, On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:12:52PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi John, > > On Sat, Aug 03, 2024 at 09:35:25PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 01:39:07PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > For those watching this bug: John has prepared backports in his tree, > > > with both approaches: > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jj/linux-apparmor.git/log/?h=debian-two-patch-1780227 > > > > > > and > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jj/linux-apparmor.git/log/?h=debian-backport-1780227 > > > > > > (but with the open question which one will be submitted for stable. > > > >From upstream stable point of view probably the two patch backport > > > approach would be the preferred one). > > > > We still have tis issue open for 6.1.y upstream TTBOMK. If you are > > confident as maintainer with any of the two approaches, would it be > > possible to submit them for stable? If the preferred one get then > > accepted and queued, we might already cherry-pick the solution for us, > > but at this point we can wait for the respective 6.1.y stable version > > which will include the fix. > > Friendly ping. Any news here?
Anything we can do there to help on the decision which set of fixes could land in the 6.1.y stable series? Would it help if I prod Mathias to test both variants for feedback? Or is there a problem you envision already by trying to backport those fixes to upstream 6.1.y? Thanks for your work, and sorry for pestering you again about it :( Regards, Salvatore
