From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6AD41DE894; Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745710369; cv=none; b=fLPVrTzqzYq2C13IoEpwHuhOLcF7j5/wf+Qh4GmmSK1DLOmqorhdeBvr1BiTWIE8Hm26yAR+k4u0QCS6gI8NNN5G0fXblbioppmO2I1pMNAsXELDdhLRWSFi7Fg2rVPcfuXvKOepsmHKI+vFhCh5Cu8+z01qv8Y+7Mw4uu9Cu5M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745710369; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HEHvu5GjdB8AWR9ycyPuGWSOfm7YTudUOghZabE2+Ic=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tzy2lNuD5znF3zpY7K0aap7QroAMqF3NERg2Ut6/HYDEpSG6fKyZPF33jM87pe1DaEhRbmoiNQ8lQ8urG3h9HOheb62pwY9R6XVnZizMR54aL3oEXw3vKDFcmassMf4bwsvYymJRbmolS2h0dhcGPw9OFjoupgDlUfl2VdZbJx4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Svwzx0gH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Svwzx0gH" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF7DFC4CEE2; Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:32:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1745710369; bh=HEHvu5GjdB8AWR9ycyPuGWSOfm7YTudUOghZabE2+Ic=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Svwzx0gHNETqnjwrdhSXHXMq4eYh2AtV7bQleGq3xu5Jjr6Pr18GprNALuT7NH8+h QDvUIIklR3KKYNDXuTTXsrxUd2gi9ZAB59kAtTXGvoa8ZC5AtgA2Zixeq/cPT7r4R+ 2PTBSTz7gkCC6dXAfJ2ik35YyLaPLJoRu2bZGwArGIBFwaKtsDz/Baa1kkBvuM8M24 BCHaH+OYnS5rNkzuGsHR+8nLdEnDHxWW9lGDmLPBi0Luyo5r/UvjpTDu6/5ZFbNbna zHRjfMFFoed0qlFlFkHVp0KHG3rT+DYE7abojgrUPcTHQZzINH3syCHpm+nNeFvsQy RQKYvzpKC/NMA== Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 19:32:47 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: Kees Cook , stable@vger.kernel.org, stable-commits@vger.kernel.org, Marco Elver , Andrey Konovalov , Andrey Ryabinin , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Patch "lib/Kconfig.ubsan: Remove 'default UBSAN' from UBSAN_INTEGER_WRAP" has been added to the 6.14-stable tree Message-ID: References: <20250426132510.808646-1-sashal@kernel.org> <71399E4C-AAD6-4ACF-8256-8866394F3895@kernel.org> <20250426141107.GA3689756@ax162> <20250426151248.GA2377568@ax162> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250426151248.GA2377568@ax162> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:12:48AM -0400, Nathan Chancellor wrote: >On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 10:52:32AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 10:11:07AM -0400, Nathan Chancellor wrote: >> > 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. > >Maybe that automation could look to see if a patch has already been sent >to the FAILED thread? Greg's instructions tell people to use >'--in-reply-to' with the FAILED message ID so it would probably cover >the vast majority of cases of manually backport. Yeah, it could be improved like you've suggested. One of the reasons I'm not tackling it yet is because it's a bit "old" and I need to rework it to use the lore/lei infra we now have and I'm a bit overloaded to try and tackle that. I think that ignoring any "FAILED:" mails that have any replies makes sense here. >> I promise I haven't "manually" ignored your backports :) > >Sorry, I did not mean for that to sound as harsh and accusatory as it >was and I appreciate the additional clarification around the process so >that it can potentially be improved :) thanks for all the work you and >Greg do. No worries, thanks for the backports! :) -- Thanks, Sasha