linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Two small fixes for recent syzbot reports

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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:58:27 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Two small fixes for recent syzbot reports

> On Apr 9, 2020, at 1:05 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Well, probably not very many people outside of robots.
> 
> Which is fine, but is also why I'd like robot failures to then be a big deal.

Agree to make a big deal part. My point is that when kicking trees of linux-next, it also could reduce the exposure of many patches (which could be bad) to linux-next and miss valuable early testing either from robots or human. Thus, the same mistakes could happen again because maintainers could simply push those little or none linux-next exposure patches to mainline with no restrictions. There is a balance to strike.