On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 05:50:34PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [13:48:58], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:37:50PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:52:59], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:08:58PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > > > On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:32:57], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:06:38PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > > > > > On (Wed) 12 Nov 2014 [11:44:35], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > This patchset fixes CVE-2014-7840: invalid > > > > > > > > migration stream can cause arbitrary qemu memory > > > > > > > > overwrite. > > > > > > > > First patch includes the minimal fix for the issue. > > > > > > > > Follow-up patches on top add extra checking to reduce the > > > > > > > > chance this kind of bug recurs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: these are already (tentatively-pending review) > > > > > > > > queued in my tree, so only review/ack > > > > > > > > is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not let this go in via the migration tree? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I Cc'd Juan and David, so if they had a problem with this, I > > > > > > expect > > > > > > they'd complain. David acked so I assume it's ok. Since I wasted > > > > > > time > > > > > > testing this and have it on my tree already, might as well just > > > > > > merge. > > > > > > > > > > IMO asking as a courtesy would've been better than just stating it. > > > > > > > > Right, thanks for reminding me. > > > > > > > > BTW, there is actually a good reason to special-case it: it's a CVE fix, > > > > which I handle. So they stay on my private queue and are passed > > > > to vendors so vendors can fix downstreams, until making fix public is > > > > cleared with all reporters and vendors. > > > > After reporting is cleared, I try to collect acks but don't normally > > > > route > > > > patches through separate queues - that would make it harder to > > > > track the status which we need for CVEs. > > > > > > Patch is public, so all of this doesn't really matter. > > > > > > But: involving maintainers in their areas, even if the patch is > > > embargoed, should be a pre-requisite. I'm not sure if we're doing > > > that, but please do that so patches get a proper review from the > > > maintainers. > > > > Involving more people means more back and forth with reporters which > > must approve any disclosure. If the issue isn't clear, I do involve > > maintainers. I send patches on list and try to merge them only after > > they get ack from relevant people. I'm sorry, but this is as far as I > > have the time to go. > > The other aspect of the thing is sub-optimal, or patches with bugs, > get pushed in, because the maintainers didn't get involved.
Patches don't get merged before they are on list for a while. I typically ping people if I don't get acks. > Also, > maintainers don't like code being changed behind their backs... no one is changing code in secret here. So don't turn your back - review patches :0 FYI I'm sometimes merging patches on list that don't get reviews for weeks - if they seem to make sense. > But if you're overloaded with handling security issues, we can help > identify a co-maintainer as well. Sure. I don't think we need more process to slow down the flow of patches even more. > > > > I guess this specific one actually is well contained, so it could go in > > > > through a specific tree if it had to. In fact, it is still possible if > > > > Juan says he prefers it so: I only expect to send pull request around > > > > tomorrow or the day after that. > > > > > > I'm sure we prefer migration patches go through the migration tree. > > > > I'm sorry - I disagree. maintainer boundaries in qemu are quite flexible > > because code is somewhat monolithic. We prefer that patches are > > reviewed by people that are familiar with it, that is for sure. Which > > tree is definitely secondary. If there's a conflict, we can resolve it. > > I doubt it will happen here. > > For well-maintained areas, I'm not sure I agree with the flexibility > argument. Juan has been maintaining the migration tree for a long > while now. Did you look at the patches? Most of them touch files like exec.c which is all over the place. > > > Also, this week I'm looking at the migration queue -- it's an > > > unofficial split of maintenance duties between Juan and me while we're > > > still trying to find out what works best. > > > > > > > I don't know how am I supposed to know that. > > Right now you don't need to -- I just pick patches up and pass them on > to Juan, who does the pull req. > > > Send patch to MAINTAINERS or something? > > I'm going to add myself to migration maintainers, yes. But that's > secondary; the pull reqs still go via Juan. > > > Amit