linux-kernel - Re: Consider picking up "scsi: core: Fix a procfs host directory removal regression" for stable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZBgdvX4hV3zmdZOc@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:47:57 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc:     "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Consider picking up "scsi: core: Fix a procfs host directory
 removal regression" for stable

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:45:04AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 20.03.23 07:19, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> > Hi Greg. From https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217215 it
> > looks like you want to add be03df3d4bfe ("scsi: core: Fix a procfs host
> > directory removal regression") to your stable queue. It lacks a stable
> > tag, but fixes a bug in a commit that afaics was backported to all
> > stable series last week.
> > 
> > Side note: would you scripts have noticed this automatically and added
> > it to the queue today? (Just wondering if this mail actually makes any
> > difference.)
> 
> Sorry, ignore that, I noticed that fix is already in your queue (I
> looked at it before writing that mail, but it seems I somehow missed it
> and only noticed now; sorry for the noise).

It's not noise, verifying that we actually picked up known fixes is
good, I'd much rather a few "do you really have this fix" emails get
sent than not sent at all and we miss things.

And I just checked, yes, if Sasha hadn't picked this up with his
scripts, my scripts would have caught it as well, so it was a good test
that our independant processes are working.

thanks,

greg k-h