linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:57:54 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes

On Tue 17-04-18 16:19:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:55:49PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> Even regression chance is tricky, look at the commits I've linked
> >> earlier in the thread. Even the most trivial looking commits that end up
> >> in stable have a chance for regression.
> >
> >Sure, you can never be certain and I think people (including me)
> >underestimate the chance of regressions for "trivial" patches. But you just
> >estimate a chance, you may be lucky, you may not...
> >
> >> >Another point I wanted to make is that if chance a patch causes a
> >> >regression is about 2% as you said somewhere else in a thread, then by
> >> >adding 20 patches that "may fix a bug that is annoying for someone" you've
> >> >just increased a chance there's a regression in the release by 34%. And
> >>
> >> So I've said that the rejection rate is less than 2%. This includes
> >> all commits that I have proposed for -stable, but didn't end up being
> >> included in -stable.
> >>
> >> This includes commits that the author/maintainers NACKed, commits that
> >> didn't do anything on older kernels, commits that were buggy but were
> >> caught before the kernel was released, commits that failed to build on
> >> an arch I didn't test it on originally and so on.
> >>
> >> After thousands of merged AUTOSEL patches I can count the number of
> >> times a commit has caused a regression and had to be removed on one
> >> hand.
> >>
> >> >this is not just a math game, this also roughly matches a real experience
> >> >with maintaining our enterprise kernels. Do 20 "maybe" fixes outweight such
> >> >regression chance? And I also note that for a regression to get reported so
> >> >that it gets included into your 2% estimate of a patch regression rate,
> >> >someone must be bothered enough by it to triage it and send an email
> >> >somewhere so that already falls into a category of "serious" stuff to me.
> >>
> >> It is indeed a numbers game, but the regression rate isn't 2%, it's
> >> closer to 0.05%.
> >
> >Honestly, I think 0.05% is too optimististic :) Quick grepping of 4.14
> >stable tree suggests some 13 commits were reverted from stable due to bugs.
> >That's some 0.4% and that doesn't count fixes that were applied to
> >fix other regressions.
> 
> 0.05% is for commits that were merged in stable but later fixed or
> reverted because they introduced a regression. By grepping for reverts
> you also include things such as:
> 
>  - Reverts of commits that were in the corresponding mainline tree
>  - Reverts of commits that didn't introduce regressions

Actually I was careful enough to include only commits that got merged as
part of the stable process into 4.14.x but got later reverted in 4.14.y.
That's where the 0.4% number came from. So I believe all of those cases
(13 in absolute numbers) were user visible regressions during the stable
process.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR