linux-kernel - Re: Linux 4.14.294

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: <e4852207ed36662a7c53e36fbbc31a71c5a3396e.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 01:26:59 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, lwn@....net,
        jslaby@...e.cz, Jason Wang <wangborong@...rlc.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.14.294

On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 08:53 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:02:21AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On 9/22/22 01:03, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 12:17 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.h b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.h
> > > []
> > > > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ struct report_list {
> > > >   * @multi_packet_cnt:	Count of fragmented packet count
> > > >   *
> > > >   * This structure is used to store completion flags and per client data like
> > > > - * like report description, number of HID devices etc.
> > > > + * report description, number of HID devices etc.
> > > >   */
> > > >  struct ishtp_cl_data {
> > > >  	/* completion flags */
> > > 
> > > Needless backporting of typo fixes reduces confidence in the
> > > backport process.
> > > 
> > 
> > The upstream commit 94553f8a218540 ("HID: ishtp-hid-clientHID: ishtp-hid-client:
> > Fix comment typo") didn't Cc: stable, but got AUTOSELed [1].
> > 
> > I think we should only AUTOSEL patches that have explicit Cc: stable.
> 
> That's not how AUTOSEL works or why it is there at all, sorry.

Perhaps not, but why is AUTOSEL choosing this and why is
this being applied without apparent human review?