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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:00:13 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 30/11/20 14:57, Greg KH wrote:
>> Every patch should be "fixing a real issue"---even a new feature.  But the
>> larger the patch, the more the submitters and maintainers should be trusted
>> rather than a bot.  The line between feature and bugfix_sometimes_  is
>> blurry, I would say that in this case it's not, and it makes me question how
>> the bot decided that this patch would be acceptable for stable (which AFAIK
>> is not something that can be answered).
> I thought that earlier Sasha said that this patch was needed as a
> prerequisite patch for a later fix, right?  If not, sorry, I've lost the
> train of thought in this thread...

Yeah---sorry I am replying to 22/33 but referring to 23/33, which is the 
one that in my opinion should not be blindly accepted for stable kernels 
without the agreement of the submitter or maintainer.

Paolo