linux-kernel - Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree"

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: <43e72e890903022337k5281a790j8641f93cce3f9c70@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:37:33 -0800
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree"

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> - Show quoted text -
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:44:40PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
>> > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >>
>> >> While extending the documentation for submitting Linux wireless bug
>> >> reports [1] we note the stable series policy on patches -- that of
>> >> having an equivalent fix already in Linus' tree. I find this
>> >> documented in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt but I'm curious if
>> >> there is any other resource which documents this or elaborates on this
>> >> a bit more. I often tell people about this rule or push _really_ hard
>> >> on testing "upstream" but some people tend to not understand. I think
>> >> that elaborating a little on this can help and will hopefully create
>> >> more awareness around the importance of trees like Stephen's
>> >> linux-next tree.
>> >
>> > Just have people google for GregKH's copious messages, telling people a fix
>> > needs to be upstream before it goes into -stable.
>> >
>> > Typically you make things easy by emailing stable@...nel.org with a commit
>> > id.
>> >
>> > There are only two exceptions:
>> > * fix is upstream, but needs to be modified for -stable
>> > * fix is not needed at all in upstream, but -stable still needs it
>>
>> This certainly helps, I'm also looking for good arguments to support
>> the reasoning behind the policy so that not only will people follow
>> this to help development but _understand_ it and so that they can
>> themselves promote things like linux-next and realize why its so
>> important. Mind you -- upstream for us in wireless for example is not
>> Linus its John's tree so what we promote is not to get the fix first
>> into Linus' tree but first into John's tree. Which is obvious to
>> developers but perhaps not to others.
>
> Who are these "people" that you are trying to convince?

OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good
idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to
hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and
what is actually upstream.

> If they aren't
> developers, why would any "others" care about our development
> proceedures?

Right -- in this case above "others" could be developers but could
also be distribution guys. Essentially I was looking for arguments to
push and show why linux-next is the next best thing since sliced bread
for all those nasty deltas.

Which OK -- maybe they can never disappear (?) but hopefully it can at
least be reduced in size over time.

> Heck, very few developers even read the Documentation files, I'd never
> expect an "other" to do that :)

Heh.. Maybe I expect too much of people and things.

  Luis
--
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/