linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"

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: <dad33d1c-77da-4b97-a0ec-4bf566f8d861@leemhuis.info>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:50:24 +0200
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 stable@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no
 semi-automatic backport"

On 11.04.24 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:59:39AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 11.04.24 07:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:25:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent
>>>> changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team.
>>>> That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag,
>>>> hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
> [...]
>>> I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT
>>> want it backported?
>> Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team
>> not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if
>> the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712226175.git.antony.antony@secunet.com/
> That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of
> changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
> 
> [...]
>> E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was
>> the best term I came up with.
> 
> Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and
> provide the reason why.
> 
> How about:
> 	cc: <do-not-apply-to-stable@...nel.org> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> 
> and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> <stable@...nel.org> is?

Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type. How
about just 'no-stable@...nel.org' (or 'nostable@...nel.org')?

Ciao, Thorsten