netdev - Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

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:	Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:46:38 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:15:28PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 
> > More seriously, there's a difference between Linus' "another random 
> > improvement" and an "is even suitable for -stable".
> > 
> > I'm not reading Linus' (Cc'ed) statement the way that a patch that is 
> > appropriate for 2.6.27.1 is not appropriate for -rc now.
> 
> Well, remember that patches that get published for -stable do have to
> go through an extra review process.  It's not true that any "obviously
> correct" bug fix gets automatically published in -stable.  Sometimes
> bug fixes do get rejected for -stable because they are too risky, or
> require more time for testing in the -rc series before they are deemed
> suitable for -stable.
>...
> If it's a really important bug, and it affects a huge number of users,
> or it's really bad security bug, the reality is that exceptions will
> be made to the rules.  But exceptions need to remain exceptions for
> extraordinary situations, not everyday occurrences.  And of course, if
> the bug does affect a huge number of users, someone should be asking
> the question why it wasn't detected sooner, say before the last merge
> window --- and to ask the question how many users is this bug really
> going to affect anyway?

Among the patches David rejected based on what Linus said was
Thomas' patch [1].

It is not a "really important bug" and does not affect "huge number
of users".

But it passes Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, and can we agree 
that if it gets submitted for 2.6.27.1 it will likely pass review and 
get applied?

That's the kind of patches I'm talking about.

> At least, that's my take on things,
> 
> 						- Ted

cu
Adrian

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/105810

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html