linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] dell-wmi: Don't send unneeded keypresses

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: <20141220162804.GA7872@khazad-dum.debian.net>
Date:	Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:28:04 -0200
From:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>,
	mjg59@...f.ucam.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dell-wmi: Don't send unneeded keypresses

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Ok, I agree that it is subjective how serious it is...
> > > > Just to remind that patch fixing problem described in
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05922.ht
> > > > ml
> > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg05924.h
> > > > tml
> > > 
> > > I don't have any objection to sending this back to stable.
> > > Stable is for fixing REAL bugs, as opposed to theorhetical
> > > races, etc. This is a "real" bug.
> > > 
> > > As to not chaning behavior, if it's OK for mainline, it's OK
> > > for stable. At least that is my understanding of it. Folks
> > > are free to verify with Greg if they disagree.
> > 
> > Darren, so how you decided? Now when patches are in linus tree, 
> > are you going to send them to stable tree?
> 
> Please don't. -stable is for serious mainline bugs people are actually
> hitting. Null pointer dereference counts, if people actually hit
> it. This is more behaviour change, and yes, the new behaviour is
> better, but it is really different class.

Sometimes the old behavior is something that is a major pain for users and
userspace.  In that case, where the new behavior fixes really annoying
usecase bugs, the fix belongs in -stable IMHO.

Broken behavior hits, by definition, every user of the feature after all.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
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/