linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Partially revert "mm/memcontrol.c: keep local VM counters in sync with the hierarchical ones"

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: <20190827173950.GJ7538@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:39:50 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Thomas Backlund <tmb@...eia.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Partially revert "mm/memcontrol.c: keep local VM
 counters in sync with the hierarchical ones"

On Tue 27-08-19 19:06:18, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:10:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 24-08-19 23:23:07, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> > > Den 24-08-2019 kl. 22:57, skrev Andrew Morton:
> > > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 19:15:23 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Fixes: 766a4c19d880 ("mm/memcontrol.c: keep local VM counters in sync with the hierarchical ones")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >   mm/memcontrol.c | 8 +++-----
> > > > > > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > <formletter>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
> > > > > > stable kernel tree.  Please read:
> > > > > >      https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> > > > > > for how to do this properly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oh, I'm sorry, will read and follow next time. Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > 766a4c19d880 is not present in 5.2 so no -stable backport is needed, yes?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately it got added in 5.2.7, so backport is needed.
> > 
> > yet another example of patch not marked for stable backported to the
> > stable tree. yay...
> 
> If you do not want autobot to pick up patches for specific
> subsystems/files, just let us know and we will add them to the
> blacklist.

Done that on several occasions over last year and so. I always get "yep
we are going to black list" and whoops and we are back there with
patches going to stable like nothing happened. We've been through this
discussion so many times I am tired of it and to be honest I simply do
not care anymore.

I will keep encouraging people to mark patches for stable but I do not
give a wee bit about any reports for the stable tree. Nor do I care
whether something made it in and we should be careful to mark another
patch for stable as a fixup like this one.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs