netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: ensure PHY is powered up when reading ID registers

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: <20190105.140632.1020256527048404409.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sat, 05 Jan 2019 14:06:32 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     andrew@...n.ch
Cc:     hkallweit1@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: ensure PHY is powered up when reading ID
 registers

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 23:04:12 +0100

> I tend to be more paranoid after listening to recent discussions about
> this. At LPC and online, there have been comments that patches to
> stable are more likely to break something than patches going via the
> normal merge window. Normal patches get a lot more testing, are in -rc
> kernels for 6 or more weeks, etc, where as stable patches go live
> after a week or less of testing.

Well, with networking it's a little bit different.

I do let patches "cook" in my stable queue before sending them off.
Sometimes for a couple weeks.

And yes, very often, follow-on fixups for a change show up during that
time.

This is primarily why I handle -stable submission in this way, and
therefore I completely agree with your concerns.