linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: undo type subscripts for subprocess.Popen

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]

Date:   Mon,  3 Jul 2023 19:54:11 +0000
From:   SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        sashal@...nel.org, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        brendanhiggins@...gle.com, rmoar@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: undo type subscripts for subprocess.Popen

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:44:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 07:27:04PM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote:
[...]
> > This patch is now in the mainline (e30f65c4b3d671115bf2a9d9ef142285387f2aff).
> > However, this fix is not in 6.4.y yet, so the original issue is reproducible on
> > 6.4.y.  Could you please add this to 6.4.y?  I confirmed the mainline commit
> > can cleanly applied on latest 6.1.y tree, and it fixes the issue.
> 
> As this was not specifically tagged with a "cc: stable..." marking, that
> is why it was not picked up automatically.

I understand that.  I thought this would be merged into the mainline before
v6.4 release, but I was wrong.

> Also, we do not normally add patches to any stable releases until it is in a
> released kernel from Linus (i.e. a -rc release), unless you have a specific
> reason for it to be merged earlier.
> 
> Should this be merged "now" into the stable trees and not wait for
> 6.5-rc1?

The problem is not urgent, so I can wait until 6.5-rc1.


Thanks,
SJ

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h