From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4A6F77 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 13:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6DBA623 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 13:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:30:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Eduardo Valentin In-Reply-To: <20180906225531.GB2251@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20180906225531.GB2251@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Handling of embargoed security issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Should we add maybe a point here to discuss which kernels are to be > considered for patching in these cases? All the stable branches? Only > mainline? Obviously, either extreme cases can hurt people. Patching > older kernels requires insane amount of work and patching only mainline > leaves distros on limbo. That'd be mostly question for the stable guys I guess. I am not sure how often did they in the past have to say "sorry, the backport is horribly complex, so we are not backporting the fix and we're keeping the bug unfixed". Greg, is this something that actually has been happening for real in the past? Or would that absolutely break the expectations that stable tree consumers have? Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs