netdev - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

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, 30 Nov 2020 09:33:46 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

On 29/11/20 22:06, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either...  Patch 3/5 in
>>>
>>> Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
>>
>> Dunno, 120 lines of new code?  Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't 
>> see why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it 
>> without any kind of testing.  Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking 
> 
> Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
> testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
> just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.

Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:

Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into 
the "-stable" tree:

  - It must be obviously correct and tested.
  - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.

> Plus all the testing we have for the stable trees, yes. It goes beyond
> just compiling at this point.
> 
> Your very own co-workers (https://cki-project.org/) are pushing hard on
> this effort around stable kernel testing, and statements like these
> aren't helping anyone.

I am not aware of any public CI being done _at all_ done on vhost-scsi, 
by CKI or everyone else.  So autoselection should be done only on 
subsystems that have very high coverage in CI.

Paolo