Re: [stable request] ROSE memory-safety fixes for 7.0.y and earlier (merged out-of-tree in linux-netdev/mod-orphan)

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2026 at 02:42:17PM +0200, Bernard Pidoux wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Thanks, much appreciated.
> 
> Short answer: yes, the same series applies to 6.18.y, and the same bugs
> exist in the older trees too -- but only 7.0.y and 6.18.y take the series
> as-is. ROSE was removed in 7.1, so every stable line up to and including
> 7.0.y still carries this code and is affected.
> 
> I just test-applied this exact mbox with "git am" against the current
> ROSE files of each tree:
> 
> v7.0.13 : clean, 15/15 (what I sent you)
> linux-6.18.y : clean, 15/15, no conflicts -- the teardown code is
> identical to 7.0.13

Great, I've applied these to both now.

> linux-6.12.y : applies up to patch 3, then conflicts in
> rose_loopback.c (the loopback/timer code predates one
> of the refactors the series builds on)
> linux-6.6.y / 6.1.y / 5.15.y : same, conflict at the same patch
> 
> So for 6.18.y I can send an identical batch right away. For 6.12.y and
> the older LTS lines the fixes are still needed, but they need a rebased
> backport rather than a straight cherry-pick; I'm happy to prepare those
> per-tree once the format is settled.
> 
> My suggestion, matching what you said: let's land this 7.0.y batch first
> to work out the workflow. As soon as it's in I'll send the (identical)
> 6.18.y batch, and then the rebased older-tree batches one line at a time.
> Whatever order is easiest on your side works for me.

What you sent was fine, no problems, if that works for you, it's fine
for me.

thanks,

greg k-h