[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250605072334.256dc524@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:23:34 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
patches@...ts.linux.dev, stable@...r.kernel.org, Eelco Chaudron
<echaudro@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, aconole@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.15 044/118] openvswitch: Stricter validation
for the userspace action
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 10:28:09 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
> Nothing that ends up on Linus's tree should not be allowed also to be in
> a stable kernel release as there is no difference in the "rule" that "we
> will not break userspace".
>
> So this isn't an issue here, if you need/want to make parsing more
> strict, due to bugs or whatever, then great, let's make it more strict
> as long as it doesn't break anyone's current system. It doesn't matter
> if this is in Linus's release or in a stable release, same rule holds
> for both.
For sure, tho, I think the question is inverted here. We seem to be
discussing arguments why something should not be backported, rather
than arguments why something should be backported. You seem to be
saying that the barrier of entry to stable is lower than what we'd
normally send to Linus for an -rc, which perhaps makes sense in other
parts of the kernel, but in networking that doesn't compute.
We go by simple logic of deciding if something is a fix.
This is not a fix. Neither is this:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250604005049.4147522-54-sashal@kernel.org/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists