linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/599] 5.10.110-rc1 review

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: <20220406101005.25d1f915@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:10:05 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        slade@...dewatkins.com, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/599] 5.10.110-rc1 review

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:26:15 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Wait, no, I did catch this!  And I sent you a "FAILED" email about it, 4
> of them:
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/164905985821176@kroah.com
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/16490598521299@kroah.com
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/1649059845215213@kroah.com
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/16490598398133@kroah.com
> as the commit applied, but broke the build:

Yes, I know, that's how I knew it was an issue ;-)

> 
> But I didn't drop the offending commit, I should have done that.

Correct.

Oh, so I guess it got in because it applied, but broke the build. Thus,
your scripts catch when a Fixes does not apply, but doesn't handle the
"broken build / boot" case?

> 
> I'll go and drop the offending commit here, if you could submit both of
> them as working backports to stable@...r if/when you want them queued up
> there, that would be great.

The patch that got backported only fixes an issue with new events (hence
why I did not mark it for stable). If those events are not backported,
there's no reason to backport this one.

-- Steve