Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > This patch should fix the bugs named here: > > http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q4/517 > > I copied Debian's approach, which is to take all the recent patches for > the vulnerable component (the FLIC decoder). > > My understanding is that the first two patches fix the CVEs, the 3rd > fixes an unrelated bug, and the 4th is a total rewrite of the component, > because "code is terrible, it should be entirely re-written" [0]. > > The CVE bug fixes are not split into discrete patches, so it doesn't > work to make patches for each CVE ID, like we normally do. > > Is this approach (concatenating the patches) okay?
I prefer having them separately, so the upstream commit can be clearly referenced in the patch header; and they can be reviewed and modified independently. In this instance it's okay, since I just checked out the 1.10 branch and concatenated the four commits and ended up with the same patch :-) That's not to say it should not be allowed. I think this approach is fine for long patch series, but at only four patches it's not the best precedent. Anyway, thanks for taking care of this, and LGTM! Please push! :-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
