linux-kernel - Re: 3.3.x: e1000 and ixgbe hang

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201205100059.04723.wolfgang.walter@stwm.de>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2012 00:59:04 +0200
From:	Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...m.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 3.3.x: e1000 and ixgbe hang

On Wednesday 09 May 2012, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...m.de>
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 18:57:13 +0200
> 
> > But when we are at it: I think that when a bug in a stable kernel is
> > found and the final fix is known it is bad practice to hord that
> > patch till submission without letting stable@ know about it.
> 
> I think you have no idea what goes into vetting patches for -stable.

I can imagine that very well. I wrote and manage a bunch of larger patches 
against wine vanilla for us and to port them regularly to newer versions.

> 
> It can take me days to put together a series, and also I time my
> -stable submissions with when Linus pulls my 'net' bug fixes into his
> tree since a part of the -stable requirements is presence in Linus's
> tree.

I know.

> 
> I therefore batch, because bleeding out individual fixes one by one to
> -stable rarely, if ever, makes sense.

I understand that and as I sad it was not my intention to question that.

> 
> And another part of what goes into vetting a patch is time.  The
> longer a patch sits in a non-stable tree getting tested, the more
> likely any unwanted bugs and side effects will be caught before the
> patch goes into -stable.
> 
> And finally I am under no obligation whatsoever to post some kind of
> status report to -stable every few days saying when I'll do this or
> that.
> 

I didn't say that you should do that.

I just don't see the point why I should not send a mail to stable@. It 
documented that there is a known problem in 3.3.5, the fix for it and that you 
already aware of it and will take care to get it into stable. Nobody had 
reported that on stable@.

I mentioned your mail not to blame you but so nobody thinks I want du submit 
it directly. Everybody reading your mail I linked to could see that you wrote 
it May 1st and therefor could not be in 3.3.5.

But I think it would have been good if someone (not you) had sent a mail as 
early as 2012-04-20 to stable@ so that others could find the solution more 
easily.

Regards,
-- 
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk München
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
--
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/