Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> This patch should fix the bugs named here:
>
> http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q4/517
>
> I copied Debian's approach, which is to take all the recent patches for
> the vulnerable component (the FLIC decoder).
>
> My understanding is that the first two patches fix the CVEs, the 3rd
> fixes an unrelated bug, and the 4th is a total rewrite of the component,
> because "code is terrible, it should be entirely re-written" [0].
>
> The CVE bug fixes are not split into discrete patches, so it doesn't
> work to make patches for each CVE ID, like we normally do.
>
> Is this approach (concatenating the patches) okay?

I prefer having them separately, so the upstream commit can be clearly
referenced in the patch header; and they can be reviewed and modified
independently.

In this instance it's okay, since I just checked out the 1.10 branch and
concatenated the four commits and ended up with the same patch :-)

That's not to say it should not be allowed. I think this approach is
fine for long patch series, but at only four patches it's not the best
precedent.

Anyway, thanks for taking care of this, and LGTM! Please push! :-)