netdev - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

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: <X8TzeoIlR3G5awC6@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:28:26 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 22/33] vhost scsi: add lun parser helper

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:33:46AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/11/20 22:06, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 29/11/20 05:13, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > > Which doesn't seem to be suitable for stable either...  Patch 3/5 in
> > > > 
> > > > Why not? It was sent as a fix to Linus.
> > > 
> > > Dunno, 120 lines of new code?  Even if it's okay for an rc, I don't
> > > see why it is would be backported to stable releases and release it
> > > without any kind of testing.  Maybe for 5.9 the chances of breaking
> > 
> > Lines of code is not everything. If you think that this needs additional
> > testing then that's fine and we can drop it, but not picking up a fix
> > just because it's 120 lines is not something we'd do.
> 
> Starting with the first two steps in stable-kernel-rules.rst:
> 
> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
> "-stable" tree:
> 
>  - It must be obviously correct and tested.
>  - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.

We do obviously take patches that are bigger than 100 lines, as there
are always exceptions to the rules here.  Look at all of the
spectre/meltdown patches as one such example.  Should we refuse a patch
just because it fixes a real issue yet is 101 lines long?

thanks,

greg k-h