linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 07:48:23 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 08:51:34PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > Thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped that patch (others
> > > > complained about it for other reasons) and will push out a -rc2 with
> > > > that fix.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I did wonder why the offending patch was included, but then I figured that
> > > I lost the "we apply too many patches to stable releases" battle, and I didn't
> > > want to re-litigate it.
> > 
> > I usually much rather take prerequisite patches rather than do
> > backports, which is why that patch was selected.
> 
> Unfortunately, that results in less useful -stable.

Not at all, it makes for a _MORE_ useful stable, as we want to mirror
what is in Linus's tree whenever possible.

Come on now, we've been doing this for 17+ years now, it's not new.

greg k-h