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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZAewdAql4PBUYOG5@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 21:45:24 +0000
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, 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, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > So to summarize, that buggy commit was backported even though:
> > > 
> > >   * There were no indications that it was a bug fix (and thus potentially
> > >     suitable for stable) in the first place.
> > >   * On the AUTOSEL thread, someone told you the commit is broken.
> > >   * There was already a thread that reported a regression caused by the commit.
> > >     Easily findable via lore search.
> > >   * There was also already a pending patch that Fixes the commit.  Again easily
> > >     findable via lore search.
> > > 
> > > So it seems a *lot* of things went wrong, no?  Why?  If so many things can go
> > > wrong, it's not just a "mistake" but rather the process is the problem...
> > 
> > BTW, another cause of this is that the commit (66f99628eb24) was AUTOSEL'd after
> > only being in mainline for 4 days, and *released* in all LTS kernels after only
> > being in mainline for 12 days.  Surely that's a timeline befitting a critical
> > security vulnerability, not some random neural-network-selected commit that
> > wasn't even fixing anything?
> 
> I see this problem, too, "-stable" is more experimental than Linus's
> releases.
> 
> I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process.
> 

There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged
make it to stable anyway.  So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form.  I
think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's
actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific
problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed...

- Eric