| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 14:38:01 -0700
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 17:13 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> If it's not necessary, fine. But we should still delete what is
> currently documented in stable_kernel_rules and was introduced in
> 8e9b9362266d, because it doesn't describe current practice.
It definitely doesn't seem to describe current practice. It looks like
it got applied because the commit description bears a somewhat strange
relation to the actual text that was added: The commit talks about the
original script that used to forward to stable (although it got me and
hpa confused) which seems to refer to a tiny deletion and the rest is
adding an Ingo one off proposal for dependencies.
For the record: Greg runs his own script now and I'm not involved.
Current process (at least from the SCSI centric view) is that if we
screw up and forward a commit with missing dependencies to stable via a
cc: tag, it won't apply and Greg tells us to fix it, which we do. That
seems to be an adequately functional process for the odd times we run
into this.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists