On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 9:20 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:13:21AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: ... > > Yes. I'm reporting this here because I'm more concerned with -stable kernels since > > they're more likely to be running on older user-space. > > Yeah, we are bug-compatible! :) While I really don't want to go back into the old arguments about what does, and does not, get backported to -stable, I do want to ask if there is some way to signal to the -stable maintainers that a patch should not be backported? Anything coming from the LSM, SELinux, or audit trees that I believe should be backported is explicitly marked with a stable@vger CC, as documented in stable-kernel-rules.rst, however it is generally my experience that patches with a 'Fixes:' tag are generally pulled into the -stable releases as well. I could start dropping the 'Fixes:' tag from non-stable tagged commits, but that's a step backwards in my opinion. I could start replying to every -stable backport email notice, but that seems like a lot of unnecessary work for something that was never marked for -stable in the first place. I'm guessing it would also add some additional management/testing burden to the -stable folks as well. -- paul-moore.com
