On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:15 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Since this is taken care of now, AFAICT, I do have one additional > > question. I reported the regression to LKML a day or so before 5.15.3 > > was cut. What should I have noticed to see that the regressing > > changeset was going to 5.15 and where should I have said "hey please > > don't ship this on 5.15 yet"? > > > > I'd like to know what to do next time :) > > > When patches are added to the stable tree they are posted > for review. > > I was Cc'd on a couple of them because of this discussion. The list > appear to be "<stable-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>". Feedback is requested > to go to "<stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>". So I believe this conversation is > enough to remove the unnecessary patches before they make it to a stable > release. > > The boiler plate looks like: > > Cc: <stable-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:11:53 +0100 (10 hours, 58 minutes, 56 seconds ago) > > > > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > exit/syscall_user_dispatch: Send ordinary signals on failure > > > > to the 5.15-stable tree which can be found at: > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > exit-syscall_user_dispatch-send-ordinary-signals-on-failure.patch > > and it can be found in the queue-5.15 subdirectory. > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. > > > I hope that helps. > > Eric So if I understand this correctly the best (or maybe even only) way to stop a regressing changeset from making it into a stable release is to separately search/watch the stable mailing list for the changeset in question? - Kyle
