netdev - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for representors

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: <20200414173718.GE1011271@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 20:37:18 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for
 representors

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:49:20PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 14/04/2020 16:16, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that a commit without a fixes tag is never a fix?
> Because fixes are much more likely than non-fixes to have a Fixes tag,
>  the absence of a fixes tag is Bayesian evidence that a commit is not
>  a fix.  It's of course not incontrovertible evidence, since (as you
>  note) some fixes do not have a Fixes tag, but it does increase the
>  amount of countervailing evidence needed to conclude a commit is a fix.
> In this case it looks as if the only such evidence was that the commit
>  message included the phrase "NULL pointer dereference".
>
> > Fixes can (and should) come in during a merge window as well. They are
> > not put on hold until the -rc releases.
> In networking-land, fixes generally go through David's 'net' tree, rather
>  than 'net-next'; the only times a fix goes to net-next are when
> a) the code it's fixing is only in net-next; i.e. it's a fix to a previous
>  patch from the same merge window.  In this case the fix should not be
>  backported, since the code it's fixing will not appear in stable kernels.
> b) the code has changed enough between net and net-next that different
>  fixes are appropriate for the two trees.  In this case, only the fix that
>  went to 'net' should be backported (since it's the one that's appropriate
>  for net, it's probably more appropriate for stable trees too); the fix
>  that went to 'net-next' should not.
> Or's original phrasing was that this patch "was pushed to net-next", which
>  is not quite exactly the same thing as -next vs. -rc (though it's similar
>  because of David's system of closing net-next for the duration of the
>  merge window).  And this, again, is quite strong Bayesian evidence that
>  the patch should not be selected for stable.
>
> To be honest, that this needs to be explained to you does not inspire
>  confidence in the quality of your autoselection process...

It is a little bit harsh to say that.

The autoselection process works good enough for everything outside
of netdev community. The amount of bugs in those stable@ trees is
not such high if you take into account the amount of fixes automatically
brought in.

I think that all Fedora users are indirectly use those stable@ trees.

Thanks