Subject: Re: stable-security kernel updates
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
References: <5717DD8A.4000707@oracle.com> <571876AB.2060106@suse.cz>
 <20160421071157.GC9359@1wt.eu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        lwn@lwn.net
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <5718B92B.3080105@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 07:27:39 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160421071157.GC9359@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 758
Lines: 20

Hey Willy,

On 04/21/2016 03:11 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> This illustrates exactly what I suspected would happen because that's the
> same trouble we all face when picking backports for our respective trees
> except that since the selection barrier is much higher here, lots of
> important ones will be missing

Right. I fully agree that there will be important security commits that'll
get missed, whether because they were missed in the stable selection or
the stable-security selection.

I'd like to point out again that updating the entire stable tree is the
preferable way to patch against security (and non-security) issues. The
stable-security tree is a best-effort solution to provide a stop-gap in
between said stable tree updates.


Thanks,
Sasha