linux-kernel - Re: Reg the next LTS kernel (6.1?)

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: <Y8JnHyKNTHMjsHSb@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:26:07 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
        Kris Chaplin <kris.chaplin@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Reg the next LTS kernel (6.1?)

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 08:14:12AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:40:19PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:22:56PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > I am just saying that developers/driver owners can simple do calculation to
> > > > identify LTS version. When they know it they also know time when their
> > > > deadline is for upstreaming work. It means if patch is accepted between
> > > > 6.0-r1 and 6.0-rc5/6 they know that it will get to 6.1 merge window.
> > > 
> > > That is what I am afraid of and if it causes problems I will purposfully
> > > pick the previous release.  This has happened in the past and is never
> > > an excuse to get anything merged.  Code gets merged when it is ready,
> > > not based on a LTS release.
> > 
> > This is probably the best reason not to preannounce when the LTS
> > release will be ahead of time --- because it can be abused by
> > developers who try to get not-ready-for-prime-time features into what
> > they think will be the LTS kernel, with the result that the last
> > release of the year could be utterly unsitable for that perpose.
> 
> We know this risk exists but since Greg never makes promises on any
> version, it remains reasonable.

I have to _not_ make promises because in the past when I did, people
threw crap into the kernel with the "justification" that they had to get
it in this specific kernel because it was going to be the LTS one.

We can't have nice things, because people abuse it :(

greg k-h