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: <20210315135509.101372603@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:51:46 +0100
From:   gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 5.11 043/306] docs: networking: drop special stable handling

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

commit dbbe7c962c3a8163bf724dbc3c9fdfc9b16d3117 upstream.

Leave it to Greg.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst       |   72 ++------------------------
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst |    6 --
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst  |    5 -
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)

--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -142,73 +142,13 @@ Please send incremental versions on top
 the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be
 merged.
 
-How can I tell what patches are queued up for backporting to the various stable releases?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Normally Greg Kroah-Hartman collects stable commits himself, but for
-networking, Dave collects up patches he deems critical for the
-networking subsystem, and then hands them off to Greg.
-
-There is a patchworks queue that you can see here:
-
-  https://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/netdev/stable/?state=*
-
-It contains the patches which Dave has selected, but not yet handed off
-to Greg.  If Greg already has the patch, then it will be here:
-
-  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
-
-A quick way to find whether the patch is in this stable-queue is to
-simply clone the repo, and then git grep the mainline commit ID, e.g.
-::
-
-  stable-queue$ git grep -l 284041ef21fdf2e
-  releases/3.0.84/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
-  releases/3.4.51/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
-  releases/3.9.8/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
-  stable/stable-queue$
-
-I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. Should I request it via stable@...r.kernel.org like the references in the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-No, not for networking.  Check the stable queues as per above first
-to see if it is already queued.  If not, then send a mail to netdev,
-listing the upstream commit ID and why you think it should be a stable
-candidate.
-
-Before you jump to go do the above, do note that the normal stable rules
-in :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`
-still apply.  So you need to explicitly indicate why it is a critical
-fix and exactly what users are impacted.  In addition, you need to
-convince yourself that you *really* think it has been overlooked,
-vs. having been considered and rejected.
-
-Generally speaking, the longer it has had a chance to "soak" in
-mainline, the better the odds that it is an OK candidate for stable.  So
-scrambling to request a commit be added the day after it appears should
-be avoided.
-
-I have created a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. Should I add a Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org like the references in the kernel's Documentation/ directory say?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-No.  See above answer.  In short, if you think it really belongs in
-stable, then ensure you write a decent commit log that describes who
-gets impacted by the bug fix and how it manifests itself, and when the
-bug was introduced.  If you do that properly, then the commit will get
-handled appropriately and most likely get put in the patchworks stable
-queue if it really warrants it.
-
-If you think there is some valid information relating to it being in
-stable that does *not* belong in the commit log, then use the three dash
-marker line as described in
-:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <the_canonical_patch_format>`
-to temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
-
-Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases?
+Are there special rules regarding stable submissions on netdev?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
-Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the
-last two stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable
-branch maintainer is supposed to take care of them. If you find any
-patch is missing from an earlier stable branch, please notify
-stable@...r.kernel.org with either a commit ID or a formal patch
-backported, and CC Dave and other relevant networking developers.
+While it used to be the case that netdev submissions were not supposed
+to carry explicit ``CC: stable@...r.kernel.org`` tags that is no longer
+the case today. Please follow the standard stable rules in
+:ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`,
+and make sure you include appropriate Fixes tags!
 
 Is the comment style convention different for the networking content?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -35,12 +35,6 @@ Rules on what kind of patches are accept
 Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
 ----------------------------------------------------
 
- - If the patch covers files in net/ or drivers/net please follow netdev stable
-   submission guidelines as described in
-   :ref:`Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst <netdev-FAQ>`
-   after first checking the stable networking queue at
-   https://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/netdev/stable/?state=*
-   to ensure the requested patch is not already queued up.
  - Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
    process but should follow the procedures in
    :ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -250,11 +250,6 @@ should also read
 :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`
 in addition to this file.
 
-Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own
-conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees.  The networking
-maintainer, in particular, would rather not see individual developers
-adding lines like the above to their patches.
-
 If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send the MAN-PAGES
 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
 least a notification of the change, so that some information makes its way


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ