linux-kernel - Re: [stable] [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]

Message-ID: <20081023114734.483e9724@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:47:34 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
	Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Jake Edge <jake@....net>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>, stable@...nel.org,
	Rodrigo Rubira Branco <rbranco@...checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: [stable] [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:33:48 -0700
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:33:39AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:53:45 -0700
> > Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:01:26PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > Huh?
> > > 
> > > Patch 3:
> > > 	Driver core: Fix cleanup in device_create_vargs().
> > > solves a memory leak on an error path that has every opportunity to
> > > happen in the driver core.  Do you think this is not a real bug?
> > 
> > Grr..  Typo on my part.  Patch 4 is the one I originally meant:
> > "Driver Core: Clarify device cleanup." It changes nothing but
> > comments.  I don't think it's a big deal at all, but are documentation
> > changes also allowed now?
> 
> It was a documentation change, fixing the information for a core API
> call to be correct and match what the code really does.
> 
> It also carried no risk of a regression, and as such, I decided to take
> it.  If you note, we have also taken other patches that fix up
> documentation issues like this in the past, so it was not the first
> time.
> 
> Was this that big of a deal?

No.  I said that already.  I'm just trying to clarify what the
expectations are for -stable because when it first started stuff liek
that wasn't taken.  Also, it seems nobody has updated the documentation
file as -stable has evolved.  I'd be more than happy to correct that,
but I just need to get a feel for where -stable is at before I can do
that.

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, just trying to help.  If you'd
rather I don't, that's fine too.

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/