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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YUowhlVfLiLWE8K/@sashalap>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:20:38 -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 Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:31:08AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>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.

So I'm thinking of yet another patch series that would go out, but
instead of AUTOSEL it'll be tagged with "MANUALSEL". It would work the
exact same way as AUTOSEL, without the final step of queueing up the
commits into the stable trees.

Thomas, do you want to give it a go? Want to describe how I filter for
commits you'd be taking care of? In the past I'd grep a combo of paths
and committers (i.e. net/ && davem@), but you have your hands in too
many things :)

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha