On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 8:59 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:10:22 +0300 Or Gerlitz wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 2:16 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > [ Upstream commit 6783e8b29f636383af293a55336f036bc7ad5619 ] > > > > Sasha, > > > > This was pushed to net-next without a fixes tag, and there're probably > > reasons for that. > > As you can see the possible null deref is not even reproducible without another > > patch which for itself was also net-next and not net one. > > > > If a team is not pushing patch to net nor putting a fixes that, I > > don't think it's correct > > to go and pick that into stable and from there to customer production kernels. > > > > Alsom, I am not sure what's the idea behind the auto-selection concept, e.g for > > mlx5 the maintainer is specifically pointing which patches should go > > to stable and > > to what releases there and this is done with care and thinking ahead, why do we > > want to add on that? and why this can be something which is just > > automatic selection? > > > > We have customers running production system with LTS 4.4.x and 4.9.y (along with > > 4.14.z and 4.19.w) kernels, we put lots of care thinking if/what > > should go there, I don't > > see a benefit from adding auto-selection, the converse. > > FWIW I had the same thoughts about the nfp driver, and I indicated to > Sasha to skip it in the auto selection, which AFAICT worked nicely. > > Maybe we should communicate more clearly that maintainers who carefully > select patches for stable should opt out of auto-selection? +1
