From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34160 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750795AbdJIIyu (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 04:54:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:54:58 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Paolo Abeni Cc: davem@davemloft.net, stable@vger.kernel.org, stable-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patch "udp: perform source validation for mcast early demux" has been added to the 4.13-stable tree Message-ID: <20171009085458.GA20532@kroah.com> References: <150753453416498@kroah.com> <1507534651.2517.1.camel@redhat.com> <20171009075751.GA695@kroah.com> <1507536134.2517.5.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1507536134.2517.5.camel@redhat.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 09:57 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 09:35 +0200, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > > > > > udp: perform source validation for mcast early demux > > > > > > > > to the 4.13-stable tree which can be found at: > > > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > > > udp-perform-source-validation-for-mcast-early-demux.patch > > > > and it can be found in the queue-4.13 subdirectory. > > > > > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > > > please let know about it. > > > > > > Please, keep this one on-hold. It needs a relevant follow-up I'm going > > > to post soon! > > > > Can I keep the patch before this one in the series "IPv4: early demux > > can return an error code"? Or should I hold off on both of these for > > now? > > AFAIK the patch "IPv4: early demux can return an error code" does not > have any issue - it's just useless without this one - I guess it can > stay in. Ok, I've now moved this one out, thanks for letting me know. And if you happen to remember when/if a fix for this goes into the tree, that would be most helpful :) thanks, greg k-h