linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review

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:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:01:26 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
	Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
	Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Rodrigo Rubira Branco <rbranco@...checkpoint.com>,
	Jake Edge <jake@....net>, Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:33:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.3 release.
>There are 17 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>let us know.  If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and
>wants to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
>
>These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the
>Cc: line.  If you wish to be a reviewer, please email stable@...nel.org
>to add your name to the list.  If you want to be off the reviewer list,
>also email us.
>
>Responses should be made by Wed, October 22, 2008 19:00:00 UTC.
>Anything received after that time might be too late.

OK, I realize I'm late.  Apologies in advance for that.

I don't see how patches 3, 16, and 17 really fit into the "stable"
rules.  None of them:

"... fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
 marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
 security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short,
 something critical."

So, are we being a bit more lax on the requirements for the
-stable kernels and I missed the memo, or?

josh
--
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/