linux-kernel - Re: Proposed stable release changes

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: <20130821210008.GA15410@nazgul.tnic>
Date:	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:00:08 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jochen Striepe <jochen@...ot.escape.de>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lwn@....net,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed stable release changes

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_
> have been included?

Well, here's one for example:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=f0a56c480196a98479760862468cc95879df3de0
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717473#54

I decided not to tag it for stable, even though Ben wanted it, just
because it is the first bug report for this and it was caused by a
pretty unusual hardware configuration. It simply wasn't important enough
to need to add it to stable, IMO.

So basically the rules at the beginning of
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt didn't really apply and that's why
I held off on it.

And I'm pretty sure I've seen similar minor issues like that simply
"automatically" tagged for stable - I just don't have more concrete
examples right now.

> I am going to be pickier (and already have, as some maintainers have
> found out), with what I accept, but so far, the number of patches I've
> rejected can be counted on one hand, a very small percentage of the
> overall number of stable patches.

Ok, fair enough. I mean, in the end of the day, it is less work for you
and for distro people. And more importantly, less unnecessary work. :-)

Thanks.
--
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/