On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:53:56PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > I found a number of missing patches and incorrect cherry-picks, which
> > > these patches should fix.
> >
> > Wow, much appreciated, thank you! Do you want them in the next release ?
> > I can add them to the current review and i
Hi Ben,
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:48:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I've belatedly reviewed stable updates 2.6.32.61-2.6.32.64 for the
> Debian 6 (squeeze) LTS project. We haven't yet included those in a
> update for Debian 6, although we do have most of the security fixes.
>
> I found a nu
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:21:01PM +, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Your backport of commit 6f442be2fb22 ("x86_64, traps: Stop using IST
> for #SS") seems to be identical to mine, but I'm unable to confirm
> that it is sufficient to fix the security issue.
If that can help, I just found th
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:21:01PM +, Luis Henriques wrote:
> Now, are they all really required for fixing CVE-2014-9090? Or are
> they just some other miscellaneous fixes? Some of them are *really*
> frightening :-)
Most of them were missing previously, and running Andy's test cod
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 01:51:45PM +, Luis Henriques wrote:
> [ Re-sending as I missed some people on the CC list. Sorry! ]
>
> Following this email I am sending for review the CVE-2014-9090 fix
> backports for both Lucid (2.6.32) and Precise (3.2.0).
>
> I'm also CC'ing Debian mai
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 02:45:47AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 18:17 +0200, Carsten Wolff wrote:
> > Source: linux-2.6
> > Version: 2.6.32-45
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we hit the above kernel panic twice in two days. There is a bugfix in
> > upstream
> > stable, but it did not
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 08:27:23PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> From: Stuart Hayes
>
> This was fixed upstream by commit e22bee782b3b00bd4534ae9b1c5fb2e8e6573c5c
> ('workqueue: implement concurrency managed dynamic worker pool'), but
> that is far too large a change for stable.
Thank you Ben, q
Hello Philipp,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:07:53AM +0200, Philipp Hahn wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday 16 February 2011 15:49:47 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Subject: fix pgd_lock deadlock
> >
> > From: Andrea Arcangeli
> >
> > It's forbidden to take the page_table_lock with the irq disabled or i
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 05:00:57AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 19:49 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ben Hutchings wrote[1]:
> >
> > > We got this fix via 2.6.26.7:
> > [...]
> > > [CIFS] make sure we have the right resume info before calling
> > > CIFSF
2.6.27.59-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us
know.
--
From: Kamalesh Babulal
powerpc/kexec: Add ifdef CONFIG_PPC_STD_MMU_64 to PPC64 code
This patch introduces PPC64 specific #ifdef bits from the upstream
commit: b3df895aebe091b1657a42a8c859bd49f
2.6.27.59-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us
know.
--
From: Kamalesh Babulal
powerpc: Fix default_machine_crash_shutdown #ifdef botch
Commit: c2be05481f6125254c45b78f334d4dd09c701c82 upstream
crash_kexec_wait_realmode() is defined only if CONFIG
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:12:57PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> Users have reported a symlink issue with my recent smbfs backport.
> Turns out my backport overlooked a second 2.6 patch w/ the fix:
>
> http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/?PAGE=cset&REV=419e7b76CdrmRG_NZ8LKj9DUUBGu1w
Perfect. P
Hi Dann,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:19:43AM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:50:47AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:03:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/other$ uname -r
> > 2
Hi Santiago !
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I tried to replicate the problem at home during the weekend with my laptop,
> but I couldn't get it to show links with previous kernels, so I guess I had
> something different on my samba serve
Hi Grant !
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:52:44AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:05:44 -0700, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> >Ah, think I see the problem now:
> >
> >--- kernel-source-2.4.27.orig/fs/smbf
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:05:44PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
(...)
> Ah, think I see the problem now:
>
> --- kernel-source-2.4.27.orig/fs/smbfs/proc.c 2007-01-19 17:53:57.247695476
> -0700
> +++ kernel-source-2.4.27/fs/smbfs/proc.c 2007-01-19 17:49:07.480161733
> -0700
> @@ -1997,7 +1997,
Hi Dann !
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:00:40PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:55:19PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > @@ -505,8 +510,13 @@
> > mnt->file_mode = (oldmnt->file_mode & S_IRWXUGO) | S_IFREG;
> > mn
Hi Grant !
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:09:57AM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
(...)
> > } else {
> >-mnt->file_mode = mnt->dir_mode = S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP |
> >-S_IROTH | S_IXOTH | S_IFREG;
> >-mnt->dir_mode = mnt->dir_mode =
Hello Santiago,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:00:30AM +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have discovered a problem with the changes applied to smbfs in 2.4.34 and
> in the security backports like last Debian's 2.4 kernel update these changes
> seem to be made to solve CVE-2006-5871 a
19 matches
Mail list logo
