linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

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:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:13:42 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable
 kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
> The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
> 
> If the stable tag is not added by the maintainer, it can always be added to
> the stable queue after the code was pushed upstream. Nothing lost but a bit
> of convenience.
> 

... and yet another opportunity for things to fall between the cracks,
which is in my opinion MUCH more likely than something inappropriate
being tagged Cc: stable.

However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.

	-hpa


--
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/