linux-kernel - Re: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable

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:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 09:52:58 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable

On Tue 13-07-21 18:28:13, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> > Trying to keep a "do not apply" list for Fixes: tags only is much harder
> > for both of us as we do these semi-manually and review them
> > individually.  Trying to remember what subsystem only does Fixes tags
> > yet really doesn't mean it is an impossible task.
> 
> Well, it shouldn't be super hard to skip all patches which have Fixes:,
> Signed-off-by:akpm and no cc:stable?
> 
> I'd really really prefer this, please.

Yes please!

> At present this -stable
> promiscuity is overriding the (sometime carefully) considered decisions
> of the MM developers, and that's a bit scary.

Not only scary, it is also a waste of precious time of those who
carefuly evaluate stable tree backports.

> I've actually been
> spending the past couple of years believing that if I left off
> cc:stable, the fix wasn't going to go into -stable!
> 
> Alternatively I could just invent a new tag to replace the "Fixes:"
> ("Fixes-no-backport?") to be used on patches which fix a known previous
> commit but which we don't want backported.
 
Please no. We already do have a way to mark for stable trees. The fact
that stable kernel maintainers tend oto ignore that shouldn't put the
burden to developers/maintainers. But hey, if stable maintainers really
want to push to quantity over quality then be it....

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs