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  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:	Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:40:20 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Dave Jones <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	stable <>
Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<> wrote:
> So if I read this (and stable_kernel_rules.txt) correctly, that means that
> for example, let's say, we find in RHEL66 or SLES42 (possibly following
> a user report), for example, that PCI hotplug is broken with some category
> of devices on some machines.
> We do a fix, it's roughtly 4 or 5 lines, pretty self contained. We get it
> into the distro.
> That still doesn't qualify for stable right ?

Not before it's been in the distro, no. Something like a PCI change
*definitely* should never be marked for stable, unless it causes
crashes or is a _new_ regression that causes dead machines.

Because the likelihood that that 4-5 line "obvious" change breaks
things is pretty high. It needs testing elsewhere - on the machines
that weren't broken - in a big way first.

And don't bother talking about "obvious fix". Especially not when it
comes to the PCI code.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists