linux-kernel - Re: Would it help to encourage users to read/test stable-review patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:23:38 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
CC:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, stable-review@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Christian Stöveken 
	<launchpad.net@...ogitation.de>
Subject: Re: Would it help to encourage users to read/test stable-review 
 patches

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> More review never hurts, but do you think there's a specific lack or
>> problem?
> 
> Not really, I was thinking about the fellow Ubunteros users who tend
> to not have a clue but sometimes enough good will to want to help. If
> the average user understood better the upstream process then perhaps
> it would become clearer to them the importance of stable patches and
> stable-review.

Shouldn't these people rather get started with "the other stable
kernel", called 2.6.x-rcZ?  And the next level would be to either test
-next or follow the master branch of a subsystem development tree of
their interest.

I think it could be more effective overall to activate more people who
watch for regressions in the mainline, send qualified and early
regression reports, and test candidate fixes.  A side effect of better
-rc kernels will be a shallower 2.6.x.y branch queue.

Patches which are submitted for stable-review should already have been
tested as part of the upstream kernel on affected and unaffected
systems.  As Chris wrote, patches which obviously need further field
testing when backported to -stable are per definition too risky for
-stable in the first place.  -stable submission should be low-risk
cherry-picking.

> Bringing users closer to stable-review to me indicates
> more users would understand the stable process and therefore would
> stop bitching to me when a 'non-cirtical' fix never made it into their
> ancient stable. Cc'ing one of those.

Ah, you have especially /these/ people in mind.  Well, set up a clever
procmail filter which autoresponds with a pointer to
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt... :-)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =--- ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/