Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp79553imn; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvKU5w9Q/Su8qXoJeVTpOvplQfnrWgoC0A2GXGVTH0N3LifnYJ3EwQZaSu936uwfvSvSIV4 X-Received: by 10.98.11.145 with SMTP id 17mr18062448pfl.150.1521661964590; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1521661964; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=cTizSQDXz2OT9yiSkSuQQm2bDXHBM9Ye4mnbiFwpjtO10nG5VKpnNv8DVxHeEMClmG B9loZ18ep5I9ISGuoOlJ9lgrxLIQo2R49fHDONMjoXZEwX83VmdY8GfNCbeHrt20hFqm aE3J2+rWCzEb8WWE3iZiYW7j96H3vc6loWBrTyO+fY8MRLAhhFxI9+FohMCV7JqJ2qFA yvZzilqcqZdggOqE1KrMdCwhFBCsApSe5ofyh4u2TLCbmxKl4fjtOoaNsLKQBjktqTt6 DcmLjziOk375rRkbiXtpSWDBCNXravZ2avvRmB4hTInskBUkYjiAiK4EXK6XC3gTOf/5 U03Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:subject:mime-version:user-agent :message-id:in-reply-to:date:references:cc:to:from :arc-authentication-results; bh=XAeFuyzaXZBN2ayklhwDLZLyYx52dBOPTZNn4IhdMkQ=; b=qMp7KwKlBK+ZwJ032l0e8p377pqFwwEGxJqnQR5axj33S0H0toZVzt5dc5+kdpOByu qdIk/G1bBifXH0J+N/hBqGHeK9RqhIo1FhItnRnxU8s+cbdKJIFkaRpByOJ7da2Xhkot JfsTtzQxbKOSScpgGkjds4g8PFL7T1pt+iFikDBDFnwEJ94hdo5E0Bs2iqaiit98jxDu lvW2j8HcnQUiXtW+mbIZNhybFy781po5JdlloNht3hdBtAJuiAAvUsOjpUnQQ+UXygfn bo5H3qLypQauOonsLBbkrw4LqxfFq7H8QmmeL8Tuaburm12rCXBHtNS3xQEm323n7agc OZ3Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i16-v6si3562008pll.484.2018.03.21.12.52.30; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753029AbeCUTup (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:50:45 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:42437 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753119AbeCUTuf (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:50:35 -0400 Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1eyjko-0005BQ-Ro; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:50:34 -0600 Received: from 97-119-121-173.omah.qwest.net ([97.119.121.173] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1eyjkZ-0002gO-F7; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:50:34 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Sasha Levin Cc: "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "stable\@vger.kernel.org" , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , "linux-parisc\@vger.kernel.org" References: <20180319154645.11350-1-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <20180319154645.11350-118-alexander.levin@microsoft.com> <87zi327ozu.fsf@xmission.com> <20180321181842.rhniantbvz25bu2f@sasha-lappy> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:49:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180321181842.rhniantbvz25bu2f@sasha-lappy> (Sasha Levin's message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:18:44 +0000") Message-ID: <87370txl8a.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1eyjkZ-0002gO-F7;;;mid=<87370txl8a.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.121.173;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19bS3Q93MZLJw+d0JrMjp9xACP+F70VROg= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.121.173 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on sa07.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.0 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,TVD_RCVD_IP,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01, T_TooManySym_02,XMSubLong,XMSubMetaSx_00,XMWhlSbjSex autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 2.5 XMWhlSbjSex Whole Obfuscated Subjects * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4739] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * 1.0 XMSubMetaSx_00 1+ Sexy Words * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ****;Sasha Levin X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 15018 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 2.6 (0.0%), b_tie_ro: 1.78 (0.0%), parse: 0.76 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 2.6 (0.0%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.11 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 4.0 (0.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.19 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.03 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 19 (0.1%), check_bayes: 18 (0.1%), b_tokenize: 6 (0.0%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.0%), b_comp_prob: 2.1 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.4 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.61 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 141 (0.9%), check_dkim_signature: 0.69 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.6 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 14838 (98.8%), poll_dns_idle: 14831 (98.8%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.15 118/124] signal/parisc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sasha Levin writes: > Hey Eric, > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20:21AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>Sasha Levin writes: >> >>What is the justification for backporting this and the other similar >>Documentation commits? > > It was flagged as a bug fixing patch by a new process we're testing, and > when I looked at it I thought that the commit message suggests it fixes > an ABI issue. Unfortunately they just reveal an ABI issue. I believe there are some fixes coming but given that the issues are a decade old in many cases actually fixing these things must be approach with care so as not to create regressions. >>These commits just introduce a define _FIXME with value of 0, to >>document that the userspace ABI was handled incorrectly long ago. >> >>These commits do not fix anything. Thes commits do not change anything >>except a little how they are handled in siginfo_layout. And I don't see >>the changes that introduce siginfo_layout in kernel/signal.c being >>backported. >> >>Further these commits don't even have a fixes tag so I am curious >>what is triggering them for backport. > > We're testing out a new mechanism where we train a neural network to > detect bug fixing patches and flag them for manual review. We're working > on a FAQ + more detailed information right now. The neural network did seem to pick up on something that is worth looking at. Eric