Re: [PATCH 3.13 163/163] lzo: check for length overrun in variable length encoding.

[Kamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com>]

On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 07:30 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Kamal,
> 
> [ removed Don Bailey from the CC who's certainly not interested in this ]
> 
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 02:03:08PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> > 3.13.11.9 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> > 
> > commit 72cf90124e87d975d0b2114d930808c58b4c05e4 upstream.
> 
> (...)

Hi Willy-

Thanks very much for reviewing this.

> This one (and the accompanying revert) are still not present in more
> recent stable kernels, so I find it surprizing that you're proposing
> to integrate them now.

I can hold out those lzo fixes until the next 3.13-stable if you prefer.
But fwiw...

>  If someone upgrades from 3.13.11.9 to 3.14.21
> or 3.16.5, they'd expect to keep all fixes but will lose this one, so
> this is a bit confusing.

I think those sorts of scheduling mismatches and discrepancies between
stable versions are pretty common.  Examples:  The top 11 commits in
v3.12.30 have not yet been applied[0] to any of the newer stable
branches;  Many of the commits in v3.10.57 have not yet been applied[1]
to linux-3.12.y but have been released in other newer stables.

>  Is there any reason you're not tracking fixes
> from more recent versions like Jiri, Li, Ben and I are doing ?

We (the Canonical stable maintainers) have always tracked the "cc:
stable" fixes directly from mainline, not from the more-recent-version
branches.  Given the examples above, it seems that the kernel.org
maintainers are doing that too, yes?

 -Kamal

[0] linux-3.12.y  1d08848..99ed1bd  (part of the big mm patch set)
[1] linux-3.10.y  07d209b..7dd3111  (various "cc: stable" patches)