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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:52:11 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, 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 30/11/20 14:28, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
>>> testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
>>> just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
>> Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
>>
>> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
>> "-stable" tree:
>>
>>   - It must be obviously correct and tested.
>>   - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> We do obviously take patches that are bigger than 100 lines, as there
> are always exceptions to the rules here.  Look at all of the
> spectre/meltdown patches as one such example.  Should we refuse a patch
> just because it fixes a real issue yet is 101 lines long?

Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature.  But 
the larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be 
trusted rather than a bot.  The line between feature and bugfix 
_sometimes_ is blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it 
makes me question how the bot decided that this patch would be 
acceptable for stable (which AFAIK is not something that can be answered).

Paolo