Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 15:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
 > 
 > > So the problem is that maintainers are lazy.  They don't want to go
 > > back for bug fixes that have "proven" themselves, and even if they
 > > aren't critical bug fixes, they are things which a distro maintainer
 > > or a stable kernel user might want (and sometimes stable uers are
 > > uppity enough to expect subsystem maintainers to do this back
 > > porting).  So subsystem maintainers then react by marking submits for
 > > stable even though they really should soak for a release or two before
 > > submitting them, since by marking them as submit, the commit gets
 > > pushed to stable automatically --- albeit early.
 > 
 > Actually, this is a very good point. There were one or two stable
 > patches I had pushed to linux-next that I wasn't too comfortable about.
 > If the fix goes back to older trees, I rather have them stirring in
 > linux-next and push it in the next merge window instead of pushing it to
 > Linus and have it go to stable immediately.
 > 
 > Unless its a obvious fix, I tend to take about a month from the time I
 > get a stable fix to the time I push it out. Making sure the stable fix
 > doesn't introduce new bugs.

Like most of the other examples in this thread, one size doesn't fit all though.

Your example above: If that fix was for "tracing reports wrong results", no big deal,
everyone can live with it for a month. If it was fixing "a bug in tracing can allow
an unprivileged user to crash the kernel", a month is unacceptable, and at
the least we should be getting an interim fix to mitigate the problem.

	Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/