Re: Patch "lib/Kconfig.ubsan: Remove 'default UBSAN' from UBSAN_INTEGER_WRAP" has been added to the 6.14-stable tree

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 10:11:07AM -0400, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 06:33:24AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>
>> On April 26, 2025 6:25:09 AM PDT, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>> >
>> >    lib/Kconfig.ubsan: Remove 'default UBSAN' from UBSAN_INTEGER_WRAP
>> >
>> >to the 6.14-stable tree which can be found at:
>> >    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>> >
>> >The filename of the patch is:
>> >     lib-kconfig.ubsan-remove-default-ubsan-from-ubsan_in.patch
>> >and it can be found in the queue-6.14 subdirectory.
>> >
>> >If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
>> >please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>>
>> Please drop this; it's fixing the other patch that should not be backported. :)
>
>This one is still technically needed but I already sent a manual
>backport for this...
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250423172241.1135309-2-nathan@kernel.org/
>https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250423172504.1334237-2-nathan@kernel.org/
>
>Sasha, it is a little insulting to me to have my manual backports
>ignored while you pull in extra unnecessary changes to make them apply

Appologies: this is a case where some things falls through the cracks
between Greg and myself. Let me explain...

Greg is usually picking up patches from the mailing list. I have the
annoying bot (which you might have seen) that tests backports folks send
over, but in reality I would rarely apply a backport someone sent over
(even if only so we won't step on each other's toes).

On the other hand, I have some automation in place that after a few
days, it combs through the FAILED: mails that Greg sends out and will
attempt to automatically resolve conflicts by bringing in dependencies
and build testing the code.

I promise I haven't "manually" ignored your backports :)

>cleanly, especially since I sent them straight to you. I already spent
>the effort to account for the conflict, which was not big or nasty
>enough to justify pulling in the upstream solution, especially when it
>is still not ready for prime time, hence this change...

I'll go drop my backports and queue up yours.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha