linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

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: <7a4c3d84-8ff7-abd9-7340-3a6d7c65cfa7@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:34:01 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either...  Patch 3/5 in 
> 
> Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.

Dunno, 120 lines of new code?  Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't see 
why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it without 
any kind of testing.  Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking things are 
low, but stuff like locking rules might have changed since older 
releases like 5.4 or 4.19.  The autoselection bot does not know that, it 
basically crosses fingers that these larger-scale changes cause the 
patches not to apply or compile anymore.

Maybe it's just me, but the whole "autoselect stable patches" and 
release them is very suspicious.  You are basically crossing fingers and 
are ready to release any kind of untested crap, because you do not trust 
maintainers of marking stable patches right.  Only then, when a backport 
is broken, it's maintainers who get the blame and have to fix it.

Personally I don't care because I have asked you to opt KVM out of 
autoselection, but this is the opposite of what Greg brags about when he 
touts the virtues of the upstream stable process over vendor kernels.

Paolo

>> the series might be (vhost scsi: fix cmd completion race), so I can 
>> understand including 1/5 and 2/5 just in case, but not the rest.  Does 
>> the bot not understand diffstats?
> 
> Not on their own, no. What's wrong with the diffstats?
>