From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] netfilter: ipset: timeout fixing bug broke SET target special timeout value Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:36:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20121016093653.GA18252@1984> References: <1349950658-12548-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <1349950658-12548-4-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <20121015232225.GB2118@kroah.com> <20121015232750.GA32665@kroah.com> <20121015234022.GB667@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:37164 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752410Ab2JPJhA (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:37:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121015234022.GB667@kroah.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:40:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:27:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:22:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:17:38PM +0200, pablo@netfilter.org wrote: > > > > From: Jozsef Kadlecsik > > > > > > > > The patch "127f559 netfilter: ipset: fix timeout value overflow bug" > > > > broke the SET target when no timeout was specified. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Jean-Philippe Menil > > > > Signed-off-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik > > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso > > > > --- > > > > > > > > This patch requires: > > > > > > > > commit 127f559127f5175e4bec3dab725a34845d956591 > > > > Author: Jozsef Kadlecsik > > > > Date: Mon May 7 02:35:44 2012 +0000 > > > > > > > > netfilter: ipset: fix timeout value overflow bug > > > > > > > > Large timeout parameters could result wrong timeout values due to > > > > an overflow at msec to jiffies conversion (reported by Andreas Herz) > > > > > > This patch doesn't apply to the 3.0.y series, care to provide a > > > backport, and a backported version of the original patch above that > > > needs it? > > > > Oh wait, should I apply the 3.0.y specific patches first? I'll go do > > that and see if these two then apply here... > > Nope, doesn't apply. Care to backport both of these patches for 3.0.y > and send them to us? I can send you the backport for 3.2 but not for 3.0. That fix is for one feature that was added in 3.1, so no way to make it for 3.0 :-) Let me know.