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]

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:13:47 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
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 Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:50:24AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 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.

I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what
the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is
such a rare occurrence.)

> How
> about just 'no-stable@...nel.org' (or 'nostable@...nel.org')?

More words are better :)

thanks,

greg k-h