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:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:31:08 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        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 Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 09:29:32PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Greg,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17 2021 at 17:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:38:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> Nah. I try to pay more attention. I'm not against AUTOSEL per se, but
>> >> could we change the rules slightly?
>> >>
>> >> Any change which is selected by AUTOSEL and lacks a Cc: stable@... is
>> >> put on hold until acked by the maintainer unless it is a prerequisite
>> >> for applying a stable tagged fix?
>> >>
>> >> This can be default off and made effective on maintainer request.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm?
>> >
>> > The whole point of the AUTOSEL patches are for the huge numbers of
>> > subsystems where maintainers and developers do not care about the stable
>> > trees at all, and so they do not mark patches to be backported.  So
>> > requireing an opt-in like this would defeat the purpose.
>> >
>> > We do allow the ability to take files/subsystems out of the AUTOSEL
>> > process as there are many maintainers that do do this right and get
>> > annoyed when patches are picked that they feel shouldn't have.  That's
>> > the best thing we can do for stuff like this.
>>
>> I guess I was not able to express myself correctly. What I wanted to say
>> is:
>>
>>   1) Default is AUTOSEL
>>
>>   2) Maintainer can take files/subsystems out of AUTOSEL completely
>>
>>      Exists today
>>
>>   3) Maintainer allows AUTOSEL, but anything picked from files/subsystems
>>      without a stable tag requires an explicit ACK from the maintainer
>>      for the backport.
>>
>>      Is new and I would be the first to opt-in :)
>>
>> My rationale for #3 is that even when being careful about stable tags,
>> it happens that one is missing. Occasionaly AUTOSEL finds one of those
>> in my subsystems which I appreciate.
>>
>> Does that make more sense now?
>
>Ah, yes, that makes much more sense, sorry for the confusion.
>
>Sasha, what do you think?  You are the one that scripts all of this, not
>me :)

I could give it a go. It adds some complexity here but is probably worth
it to avoid issues.

Let me think about the best way to go about it.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha