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  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, 16 Apr 2018 12:31:09 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <>,
        Pavel Machek <>, Petr Mladek <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Mel Gorman <>, Michal Hocko <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Byungchul Park <>,
        Tejun Heo <>, Greg KH <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> If you know of the fix, fine. But clearly people DID NOT KNOW. So
> reverting was the right choice.

.. and this is obviously different in stable and in mainline.

For example, I start reverting very aggressively only at the end of a
release. If I get a bisected bug report in the last week, I generally
revert without much argument, unless the author of the patch has an
immediate fix.

In contrast, during the merge window and the early rc's, I'm perfectly
happy to say "ok, let's see if somebody can fix this" and not really
consider a revert.

But the -stable tree?

Seriously, what do you expect them to do if they get a report that a
commit they added to the stable tree regresses?

"Revert first, ask questions later" is definitely a very sane model there.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists