linux-kernel - [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:00:12 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

Hi all,

I'd like to propose a discussion about the workflow of the stable trees
when it comes to fs/ and mm/. In the past year we had some friction with
regards to the policies and the procedures around picking patches for
stable tree, and I feel it would be very useful to establish better flow
with the folks who might be attending LSF/MM.

I feel that fs/ and mm/ are in very different places with regards to
which patches go in -stable, what tests are expected, and the timeline
of patches from the point they are proposed on a mailing list to the
point they are released in a stable tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose
two different sessions on this (one for fs/ and one for mm/), as a
common session might be less conductive to agreeing on a path forward as
the starting point for both subsystems are somewhat different.

We can go through the existing processes, automation, and testing
mechanisms we employ when building stable trees, and see how we can
improve these to address the concerns of fs/ and mm/ folks.

--
Thanks,
Sasha