linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline

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: <51E6673F.5050002@huawei.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:43:27 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline

On 2013/7/17 4:10, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
>>> 	Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> # delay for 3.12-rc4
>>> or some such wording.  I take those and don't apply them until the noted
>>> release happens, so you can do this if needed.

But this is not documented in stable_kernel_rules.txt. And it's not handled
by your automatic scripts?

>>
>> I guess the thing is, are stable patches prone to regressions. Do we
>> just do that for patches that we think are too complex and may cause
>> some harm. Of course, there's the question about having a clue about
>> what patches might cause harm or not.
> 
> We'd probably better switch the tag to be "# now" to imply that we don't
> want to delay them, and that by default those merged prior to rc4 are all
> postponed. I suspect that the switching could be mostly automated this way,
> avoiding to add burden to Greg :
> 
>   - if commit ID >= -rc4
>     move to immediate queue, it's a "critical" fix as per Linus' rules
> 
>   - if Cc: stable line has "now" at the end, move to immediate queue as
>     the maintainer takes this reponsibility ;
> 
>   - otherwise move to the next .2 queue.
> 

I like the idea of postpone stable patches by default.

--
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/