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]

Message-ID: <ZA9xWaHuh3hiYr8X@sol.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:54:17 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 06:41:49PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > (Even just stable-kernel-rules.rst is totally incorrect these days.)
> 
> I do not understand this, what is not correct?
> 
> It's how to get patches merged into stable kernels, we go
> above-and-beyond that for those developers and maintainers that do NOT
> follow those rules.  If everyone followed them, we wouldn't be having
> this discussion at all :)

The entire list of rules for what patches are accepted into stable.  This is a
longstanding issue that has been reiterated many times in the past, see
https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20220924182124.GA19210@duo.ucw.cz for example.

The fact is, many people *do* follow the rules exactly by *not* tagging commits
for stable when they don't meet the documented eligibility criteria.  But then
the stable maintainers backport the commits anyway, as the real eligibility
criteria are *much* more relaxed than what is documented.

- Eric