Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221209082936.892416-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
 <CAHC9VhSKeTqR+m5g2Nacp9ZJbvD3=OADGMEfDRX4rsH8HmGO9g@mail.gmail.com> <8b202f4e2e234e6786b1c078129e2c3e6853c404.camel@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <8b202f4e2e234e6786b1c078129e2c3e6853c404.camel@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:19:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTvzFdVGCFjFkyCjdXgqZrfvDCVJ3TJ8-0xq8RfFU1Rjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lsm: Fix description of fs_context_parse_param
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, casey@schaufler-ca.com, omosnace@redhat.com,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:34 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-12-09 at 12:28 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > >
> > > The fs_context_parse_param hook already has a description, which seems the
> > > right one according to the code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 3 ---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > I just merged this into lsm/next with a 'Fixes' tag pointing at the
> > previous comment block commit, thanks Roberto.
>
> Thanks Paul. Didn't include it, as I thought it is part of the stable
> kernel process. I guess it is always fine to include it, and to not CC
> the stable kernel mailing list, when the patch does not meet the
> criteria.

To be clear, the 'Fixes' tag here was for the previous comment fix
patch which only exists in the lsm/next branch and not any released
kernel, adding a stable/CC to this patch wouldn't have done anything
except throw up a number of automatically generated merge conflicts as
the stable folks tried to merge just this patch.  The 'Fixes' tag is
simply a bit of administrative housekeeping to connect this patch back
to the original, problematic patch; it will largely go unnoticed
unless someone decides to cherry pick patches.

When in doubt it's okay to add a Fixes tag, but leave off the
stable/CC.  In fact I prefer if people leave off the stable/CC as I've
found it to often be misused IMO; I'd rather add it when merging the
patch into one of the stable branches.

-- 
paul-moore.com