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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:20:30 -0700 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for v5.8 On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:12 PM Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org> wrote: > > That said I'm a little fuzzy on where to draw the line for which kinds > of changes really should be required to have bake time in -next. If > you think this is one of those cases, we can hold off on this until we > have some bake time for v5.9. It's merged, but in general the rule for "bake in -next" should be absolutely everything. The only exception is just pure and plain fixes. This SafeSetID change should in fact have been there for two different reasons: not only was it a new feature rather than a fix (in linux-next just for testing), it was one that crossed subsystem borders (should be in linux-next just for cross-subsystem testing). It touched files that very much aren't touched by just you. "Looks obvious" has nothing to do with avoiding linux-next. I suspect most of the bugs we have tend to be in code that "looked obvious" to somebody. Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists