Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:18:15PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 4/21/21 2:28 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > 
> > > I am all for discussing policy of trivial patches (*), but just to make it
> > > clear -- I don't think that's really directly related to the University of
> > > Minnesota issue.
> > 
> > (*) saying that as a de-facto maintainer of trivial.git, although that
> >      tree has been severely neglected over the past years. Also, as far as
> >      I can say, none of the umn.edu patches went in through the trivial
> >      tree
> > 
> 
> I agree. I looked at a few including this one:
> 
> 8e949363f017e2011464812a714fb29710fb95b4
> net: mlx5: Add a missing check on idr_find, free buf
> 

Coincidentally that introduced a UAF (or, rather, made an existing UAF
worse) which was later fixed with commit 31634bf5dcc4. Was that one of
the experiments ?

Guenter

> Definitely doesn't fall under trivial category. It is unfortunate
> that we are in the situation to not be able to trust patches as we
> do get fix patches for syzbot bugs from new developers.
> 
> There are no easy solutions other than reviews. Trivial patch focused
> policy will not help address this problem.
> 
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>