linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] On DRM -> stable 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2024110803-undermine-viewable-2605@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 09:49:20 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
	Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@....com>,
	Leo Li <sunpeng.li@....com>,
	Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@....com>,
	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
	"Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@....com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Fangzhi Zuo <Jerry.Zuo@....com>, Wayne Lin <wayne.lin@....com>,
	amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org,
	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	Jonathan Gray <jsg@....id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] On DRM -> stable process

On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 11:41:18AM +0300, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> On Tue, 05. Nov 07:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 05:55:28PM +0300, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> > > It is just strange that the (exact same) change made by the commits is
> > > duplicated by backporting tools. As it is not the first case where DRM
> > > patches are involved per Greg's statement [1], I wonder if something can be
> > > done on stable-team's side to avoid such odd behavior in future.
> > 
> > No, all of this mess needs to be fixed up on the drm developer's side,
> > they are the ones doing this type of crazy "let's commit the same patch
> > to multiple branches and then reference a commit that will show up at an
> > unknown time in the future and hope for the best!" workflow.
> > 
> > I'm amazed it works at all, they get to keep fixing up this mess as this
> > is entirely self-inflicted.
> 
> Thanks for reply, I get your remark. DRM people are mostly CC'ed here,
> hopefully it won't be that difficult to tune their established workflow to
> make the stable process easier and more straightforward.
> 
> As of now, would you mind to take the revert for 6.1? It's [PATCH 1/1] in
> this thread. No point to keep it there, and the duplicated commits were
> already reverted from the fresher stable kernels.
> 

I don't see it in my review queue anymore, can you please resend it?

thanks,

greg k-h