linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in timespec64_to

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:53:00 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Hannen <lukas.hannen@...nsource.tttech-industrial.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in
 timespec64_to_ns()

On Fri, Sep 17 2021 at 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I usually spend quite some time on tagging patches for stable and it's
> annoying me that this patch got reverted while stuff which I explicitely
> did not tag for stable got backported for whatever reason and completely
> against the stable rules:
>
>   627ef5ae2df8 ("hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns()")
>
> What the heck qualifies this to be backported?
>
>  1) It's hot of the press and just got merged in the 5.15-rc1 merge
>     window and is not tagged for stable
>
>  2) https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>
>     clearly states the rules but obviously our new fangled "AI" driven
>     approach to select patches for stable is blissfully ignorant of
>     these rules. I assume that AI stands for "Artifical Ignorance' here.
>
> I already got a private bug report vs. that on 5.10.65. Annoyingly
> 5.10.5 does not have the issue despite the fact that the resulting diff

5.14.5 obviously...

> between those two versions in hrtimer.c is just in comments.
>
> Bah!
>
> Thanks,
>
>         tglx