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:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:41:33 +0300
From:   Thomas Backlund <tmb@...eia.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     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>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes

Den 16-04-2018 kl. 19:19, skrev Sasha Levin:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000
>> Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility":
>>> we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable.
>>> If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way.
>>
>> Wait! What does that mean? What's the purpose of stable if it is as
>> broken as mainline?
> 
> This just means that if there is a fix that went in mainline, and the
> fix is broken somehow, we'd rather take the broken fix than not.
> 
> In this scenario, *something* will be broken, it's just a matter of
> what. We'd rather have the same thing broken between mainline and
> stable.
> 

Yeah, but _intentionally_ breaking existing setups to stay "bug 
compatible" _is_ a _regression_ you _really_ _dont_ want in a stable
supported distro. Because end-users dont care about upstream breaking
stuff... its the distro that takes the heat for that...

Something "already broken" is not a regression...

As distro maintainer that means one now have to review _every_ patch 
that carries "AUTOSEL", follow all the mail threads that comes up about 
it, then track if it landed in -stable queue, and read every response 
and possible objection to all patches in the -stable queue a second time 
around... then check if it still got included in final stable point 
relase and then either revert them in distro kernel or go track down all 
the follow-up fixes needed...

Just to avoid being "bug compatible with master"

--
Thomas