linux-kernel - Re: Is Fixes line enough?

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: <20181023173747.GG6850@thunk.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:37:47 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is Fixes line enough?

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:36:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> FWIW, I brought this up already at KS 2016, see Jon's coverage here:
> 
> 	https://lwn.net/Articles/705220/
> 
> My primary motivation to bring that up back then was to try to reduce the 
> number of patches that are taken into -stable while there is no good 
> justification for that (by requiring each and every of those having Fixes: 
> present as a requirement), but it didn't really lead anywhere.

Ah, I didn't get that you were trying to suggest that things only go
into stable if it has both Fixes: *and* Cc: Stable.

If that's the problem you were trying to solve, perhaps we could ask
Stephen Rothwell if he would be willing to run a script that sends
nag-o-grams to Maintainers who incluce patches in linux-next that have
Cc: stable but neither Fixes nor a "# 4.x" appended to the end of the
Cc: stable line?

						- Ted