[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: backporting 2.6.12.3 fixes to 2.6.8



On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:49 +0900, Horms wrote:
> New batch, got to run to a meeting, will finish off later.
> 
> -- 
> Horms
> 
> http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/stable-queue.git;a=tree;h=931f32e10913cbb20170dd90623aacb2139a8129;hb=1f61f31059270a271c6fcb7c3c5782dda85238eb;f=queue
> 
> kbuild-fix-tags-problem-with-o.patch
> - Not in 2.4.27
  - Not in 2.6.8

> qla2xxx-fc_remote_port_add-failure-fix.patch
> - Not in 2.4.27
  - Not in 2.6.8

> rocket_c-fix-ldisc-ref-count.patch
> - Applies to 2.4.27, need to rediff and apply to our tree, not sure about
>   upstream
  - Applies to 2.6.8 (rocket_c-fix-ldisc-ref-count.dpatch)

> x86_64-32bit-memleak.patch
> - still need to check
  - Not in 2.6.8

> skb-signedness-fix.patch
> - still need to check
  - Doesn't appear to be in 2.6.8

> netfilter-deadlock-ip6_queue.patch
> - Applies to 2.4.27 (176_net-ipv4-netfilter-untracked-refcount.diff)
> - Applies to upstream 2.4, will submit
  - Applies to 2.6.8 (netfilter-deadlock-ip6_queue.dpatch)

> netfilter-NAT-memory-corruption.patch
> - Applies to 2.4.27 (174_net-ipv4-netfilter-nat-mem.diff)
> - Applies to upstream 2.4, will submit
  - Applies to 2.6.8 (netfilter-NAT-memory-corruption.dpatch)

> netfilter-ip_conntrack_untracked-refcount.patch
> - Applies to 2.4.27 (175-net-ipv6-netfilter-deadlock.diff)
> - Applies to upstream 2.4, will submit
  - Applies to 2.6.8 (netfilter-ip_conntrack_untracked-refcount.dpatch)

> ipsec-array-overflow.patch
> - Not in our ipsec backport to 2.4.27, but the backport probably wants
>   updating
 - Applies to 2.6.8 (ipsec-array-overflow.dpatch)

> bio_clone-fix.patch 
> - Not in 2.4.27
  - Not in 2.6.8

> sys_get_thread_area-leak.patch
  - Applies to 2.6.8

> early-vlan-fix.patch 
> - Not in 2.4.27
  - Applies to 2.6.8 (early-vlan-fix.dpatch)

> powernow-dual-core-amd-oops.patch
> - Not in 2.4.27
  - Applies to 2.6.8 (powernow-dual-core-amd-oops.dpatch)




Reply to: