Re: CVE-2023-52437: Revert "md/raid5: Wait for MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING in raid5d"

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:53:56AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:05 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:32:03AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:31:06PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > So if the reply-to points to LKML + the subsystem mailing
> > > > list for the maintainers + a new ML for the security folks (and these three
> > > > are also CC'd on the announcements, at least the last two), that would be
> > > > nice to have.  I can work on patches to vulns.git, for example to integrate
> > > > with get_maintainer.pl, if you ack the idea.
> > >
> > > That might be a bit noisy, for some commits, but sure, I can see the
> > > value in being notified about a CVE for my subsystem.  If you have a
> > > specific 'get_maintainer.pl' command line invocation you think would be
> > > good, I can easily add it to the scripts.
> >
> > Would:
> >         --no-keywords --no-git --no-git-fallback --norolestats --nol
> >
> > be a good pattern to follow?
> 
> I would include lists as well. it would be nice to exclude
> reviewed-bys but that's not easy to do in get_maintainer.pI

That would hit lkml for everything, which is probably not a good idea :(

I think maintainers for now would be a good start, let me see about
adding that the next chance I get.

thanks,

greg k-h