linux-kernel - Re: AUTOSEL process

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]

Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 07:09:49 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     Slade Watkins <srw@...dewatkins.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:13:56PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:05:16PM -0500, Slade Watkins wrote:
> > On 2/28/23 06:28, Greg KH wrote:
> > >> But just so you know, as a maintainer, you have the option to request that
> > >> patches to your subsystem will not be selected by AUTOSEL and run your
> > >> own process to select, test and submit fixes to stable trees.
> > > 
> > > Yes, and simply put, that's the answer for any subsystem or maintainer
> > > that does not want their patches picked using the AUTOSEL tool.
> > > 
> > > The problem that the AUTOSEL tool is solving is real, we have whole
> > > major subsystems where no patches are ever marked as "for stable" and so
> > > real bugfixes are never backported properly.
> > 
> > Yeah, I agree.
> > 
> > And I'm throwing this out here [after having time to think about it due to an
> > internet outage], but, would Cc'ing the patch's relevant subsystems on AUTOSEL
> > emails help? This was sort of mentioned in this email[1] from Eric, and I
> > think it _could_ help? I don't know, just something that crossed my mind earlier.
> > 
> 
> AFAICT, that's already being done now, which is good.  What I was talking about
> is that the subsystem lists aren't included on the *other* stable emails.  Most
> importantly, the "FAILED: patch failed to apply to stable tree" emails.

Why would the FAILED emails want to go to a mailing list?  If the people
that were part of making the patch don't want to respond to a FAILED
email, why would anyone on the mailing list?

But hey, I'll be glad to take a change to my script to add that
functionality if you want to make it, it's here:
	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/bad_stable

thanks,

greg k-h