netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock

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: <87frowcd7i.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:52:17 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>, bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 anna-maria@...utronix.de, frederic@...nel.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
 johnstul@...ibm.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, jstultz@...gle.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check
 in pc_clock_settime()

On Tue, Oct 15 2024 at 16:22, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:33:02 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > I'm guessing we can push this into 6.12-rc and the other patch into
>> > net-next. I'll toss it into net on Monday unless someone objects.  
>> 
>> Can you folks please at least wait until the maintainers of the code in
>> question had a look ?
>
> You are literally quoting the text where I say I will wait 3 more days.
> Unfortunately "until the maintainers respond" leads to waiting forever
> 50% of the time, and even when we cap at 3 working days we have 300
> patches in the queue (292 right now, and I already spent 2 hours
> reviewing today). Hope you understand.

I understand very well, but _I_ spent the time to review the earlier
variants of these patches and to debate with the submitter up to rev
5.

Now you go and apply a patch to a subsystem you do not even maintain just
because I did not have the bandwidth to look at it within the time
limit you defined? Seriously?

This problem is there for years, so a few days +/- are absolutely not
relevant.

> Sorry if we applied too early, please review, I'll revert if it's no
> good.

I assume you route it to Linus before 6.12 final. So let it applied.

Thanks,

        tglx