linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64 ia32 syscall restart fix

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]

Message-Id: <20080229130237.da291a1e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:02:37 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...hat.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64 ia32 syscall restart fix

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:37:05 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > and one area where commit messages are totally important IMO is bug 
> > forensics. For every regression we find we try to put in the commit ID 
> > that broke it. Information like that is vital to have a good (and 
> > objective) picture about how bugs get into and get out of the kernel 
> > and it also alerts us to change/improve infrastructure if certain 
> > categories of bugs happen too often.
> 
> another "commit space" feature Thomas and me was thinking about was to 
> put in "backport suggestions" for -stable the following way:
> 
>    Backport-suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> and the -stable tree could then notice it, and once it has been 
> backported, they could put in their "done" notifiers via:
> 
>    Backported-from: 67ca7bde2e9d3516b5
> 
> or:
> 
>    Backport-rejected: 67ca7bde2e9d3516b5
> 
> This way the act of suggesting backports to the -stable tree (and their 
> rejection) could be fully automated, and the answer to the rather 
> difficult question:
> 
>    "has -stable picked up all backport requests, and if not, why?"
> 
> could be scripted up.
> 
> A further (small) variation of this scheme: if a fix is noticed to be a 
> backport candidate later on, or a user notices that a fix that has gone 
> upstream fixes a -stable bug too, this information could be signalled in 
> a separate, special, empty commit:
> 
>    Backport-suggested-by: 67ca7bde2e9d35, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> 
> this way subsystem maintainers could have a reliable protocol of getting 
> fixes integrated into -stable - purely via the commit messages in your 
> tree.
> 
> ... but then we decided that handling x86 architecture maintainance is 
> work enough already, without us complicating our own life any further 
> ;-)
> 
> But the idea is solid nevertheless, and if everyone did it the -stable 
> guys would have a much easier life as well :-) [ We could start doing it 
> in x86.git if there's general agreement and if the -stable guys 
> specifically asked for this. ]
> 

I believe the -stable guys have a bot which trolls the mainline commits
mailing list for "cc:.*stable@...nel.org".  So anybody anywhere in the
patch delivery chain can append "Cc: <stable@...nel.org>" and things
should get appropriate consideration.

The place where I suspect there is a lot of lossage is people simply not
thinking about whether a fix should be backported.  I'm forever fussing
about that for the patches I handle (and I still miss some) but I have a
suspicion that not all tree-owners do this fully.

--
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/