linux-kernel - Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-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: <20130712195501.GC32054@1wt.eu>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:55:01 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 15:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> > So the problem is that maintainers are lazy.  They don't want to go
> > back for bug fixes that have "proven" themselves, and even if they
> > aren't critical bug fixes, they are things which a distro maintainer
> > or a stable kernel user might want (and sometimes stable uers are
> > uppity enough to expect subsystem maintainers to do this back
> > porting).  So subsystem maintainers then react by marking submits for
> > stable even though they really should soak for a release or two before
> > submitting them, since by marking them as submit, the commit gets
> > pushed to stable automatically --- albeit early.
> 
> Actually, this is a very good point. There were one or two stable
> patches I had pushed to linux-next that I wasn't too comfortable about.
> If the fix goes back to older trees, I rather have them stirring in
> linux-next and push it in the next merge window instead of pushing it to
> Linus and have it go to stable immediately.
> 
> Unless its a obvious fix, I tend to take about a month from the time I
> get a stable fix to the time I push it out. Making sure the stable fix
> doesn't introduce new bugs.

Indeed, which goes down to my comment somewhere else in this thread about
"Cc:stable" being used as a convenient marker for a bug fix. Let's simply
have a real marker and this should flow much smoother because end users
will ask "Dear stable maintainers, could we please merge this patch, I
need it".

Regards,
Willy

--
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/