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: <87sfxx65dr.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 22:27:44 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 298/334] time: Handle negative seconds correctly in
 timespec64_to_ns()

On Tue, Sep 21 2021 at 15:20, Sasha Levin wrote:
> 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:
>>>>
>>>>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 :)

Indeed. :(

So pretty much all what matches in MAINTAINERS entries where my name
happened to end up for some reasons. That would be a good start.

Might be a bit overbroad as it also includes x86/kvm, x86/xen, x86/pci
which I'm not that involved with, but to make it simple for you, I just
volunteered the relevant maintainers (CCed) to participate in that
experiment. :)

Thanks,

        tglx