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]

Message-ID: <YO8Gzl2zmg8+R8Uu@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:46:22 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:35:29AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Another solution (and these don't have to be mutually exclusive) might
> be for maintainers can explicitly state that certain patches shouldn't
> be backported into stable kernels.  I think having an explicit
> "No-Backport: <Reason>" might be useful, since it documents why a
> maintainer requested that the patch not be backported, and being an
> explicit tag, it makes it clear that it wasn't just a case of the
> developer forgetting the "Cc: stable" tag.  This makes it much better
> than implicit rules such as "If from: akpm then don't backport" hidden
> in various stable maintainers' scripts.

The number of valid cases where someone puts a "Fixes:" tag, and that
patch should NOT be backported is really really slim.  Why would you put
that tag and not want to have known-broken kernels fixed?

If it really is not an issue, just do not put the "Fixes:" tag?

thanks,

greg k-h