[Fwd: [PATCH net 0/1] af_iucv: Validate socket address length in iucv_sock_bind()]

Thx, Dave! "net" and "stable" are exactly my intended trees for this
patch. "next-tree" has been my spelling error; I meant "net-tree". Sorry
for that!

-------- Forwarded Message --------

From:        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To:        ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Cc:        mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com, heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ubraunu@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date:        19/01/2016 20:24
Subject:        Re: [PATCH net 0/1] af_iucv: Validate socket address
length in iucv_sock_bind()
Sent by:        linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org

______________________________________________________________________



From: Ursula Braun <redacted>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:41:32 +0100

quoted

this patch fixes a problem reported by Dmitry Vyukov in december. It

is built

quoted

and intended for the next-tree.

A bug fix is not appropriate for the next tree.

All bug fixes should target 'net'.  You even contacted me privately
asking me to queue this up for -stable.  Submitting something for
net-next and wanting a -stable backport is doubly inappropriate.

Things don't go to -stable unless it's in Linus's tree.  'net' is
for bug fixes, 'net-next' (closed right now) is for new features,
cleanups, and fixes to code only present in 'net-next'.

Anyways I applied this to 'net' and queued it up for -stable.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html