linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 113/290] net: dsa: implement a central TX reallocation procedure

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: <YFDbBygzYu1yqBh9@sashalap>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:21:27 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 113/290] net: dsa: implement a central TX
 reallocation procedure

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 05:05:11PM +0100, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:54:01AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 06:46:10AM +0100, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
>> > I cc: everyone on the signed-off-by list on the patch, why would we need
>> > to add more?  A maintainer should always be on that list automatically.
>>
>> Oh, hm, could this be an issue with subsystems that have a shared
>> maintainership model? In that scenario not all maintainers will sign-off
>> on a commit.
>
>So a shared maintainer trusts their co-maintainer for reviewing patches
>for Linus's tree and all future kernels, but NOT into an old backported
>stable tree?  I doubt that, trust should be the same for both.

I don't think it's necessarily a trust issue, but is an availability
issue: one of the reasons shared maintainership models exist is so
that one maintainer can go on vacation (or focus other work) while the
other maintainer(s) take over. If we send a review request to that
maintainer he might be away and we'll never get our review.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha