linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

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]

Date:	Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:47:06 -0700
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable
 kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 02:40 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The solution, to me, looks simple:  Let's co-opt a process we already
> > know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling.  So the proposal
> > is simple:
> > 
> >      1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add an ill
> >         reviewed patch to stable
> >      2. All patches to stable should follow current review rules: They
> >         should go to the mailing list the original patch was sent to
> >         once the original is upstream as a request for stable.
> >      3. Following debate on the list, the original maintainer would be
> >         responsible for collecting the patches (including the upstream
> >         commit) adjudicating on them and passing them on to stable after
> >         list review (either by git tree pull or email to stable@).
> > 
> > I contend this raises the bar for adding patches to stable much higher,
> > which seems to be needed, and adds a review stage which involves all the
> > original reviewers.
> 
> Could we keep the Cc: stable tag itself, since the dependency
> information ("Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched:
> Check for idle") is actually very useful? If we discard that, then we
> really should revise the whole stable system, since it would mean that
> we are in effect discarding the 'upstream first' rule.

The two don't follow.  No-one's proposing to dump the must be upstream
rule.  The proposal is to modify the automatic behaviour that leads to
over tagging for stable and consequently too many "stable" patches that
aren't really.

James


--
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/