linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.12 000/181] 3.12.24-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: <20140703023618.GO4453@dastard>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:36:18 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	stable@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
	satoru.takeuchi@...il.com, shuah.kh@...sung.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 000/181] 3.12.24-stable review

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:09:34AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 01:53 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.12.24 release.
> >> There are 181 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >> let me know.
> > .....
> >> Dave Chinner (3):
> >>   xfs: prevent deadlock trying to cover an active log
> >>   xfs: prevent stack overflows from page cache allocation
> >>   xfs: xfs_remove deadlocks due to inverted AGF vs AGI lock ordering
> > 
> > None of the XFS patches you're backporting were marked for stable.
> > What criteria did you choose them by, and how are you testing the
> > result?
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> these patches are in SUSE's enterprise linux based on 3.12. So I picked
> them from there. Testing is covered by our QA, but of course, with some
> additional patches on the top of them which do not satisfy the stable
> rules (because they add features).
> 
> > Randomly picked XFS backports have a nasty habit of causing
> > regressions, and it's always me that is on the pointy end of having
> > to triage problems users report with those backports...
> 
> Despite the patches fix real problems, if you prefer me not to take such
> patches, I will drop them and will apply no more.

I don't mind as long as I know they are being testing properly. It
sounds like you've already got that in hand (via SuSE QA), so I
don't have any problems with including them.

I just wanted to understand the process because it seemed a little
unusual for a stable kernel. ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/