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  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:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:15:03 +0200
From:	"Michal Piotrowski" <>
To:	"Adrian Bunk" <>
Cc:	"Stefan Richter" <>,
	"Oleg Verych" <>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <>,
	"Andi Kleen" <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	"Diego Calleja" <>,
	"Chuck Ebbert" <>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <>,
	"Andrew Morton" <>
Subject: Re: How to improve the quality of the kernel?

On 17/06/07, Adrian Bunk <> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:17:58PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 17/06/07, Adrian Bunk <> wrote:
> >...
> >> Fine with me, but:
> >>
> >> There are not so simple cases like big infrastructure patches with
> >> 20 other patches in the tree depending on it causing a regression, or
> >> even worse, a big infrastructure patch exposing a latent old bug in some
> >> completely different area of the kernel.
> >
> > It is different case.
> >
> > "If the patch introduces a new regression"
> >
> > introduces != exposes an old bug
> My remark was meant as a note "this sentence can't handle all
> regressions" (and for a user it doesn't matter whether a new
> regression is introduced or an old regression exposed).
> It could be we simply agree on this one.  ;-)
> > Removal of 20 patches will be painful, but sometimes you need to
> > "choose minor evil to prevent a greater one" [1].
> >
> >> And we should be aware that reverting is only a workaround for the real
> >> problem which lies in our bug handling.
> >...
> And this is something I want to emphasize again.
> How can we make any progress with the real problem and not only the
> symptoms?
> There's now much money in the Linux market, and the kernel quality
> problems might result in real costs in the support of companies like
> IBM, SGI, Redhat or Novell (plus it harms the Linux image which might
> result in lower revenues).
> If [1] this is true, it might even pay pay off for them to each assign
> X man hours per month of experienced kernel developers to upstream
> kernel bug handling?
> This is just a wild thought and it might be nonsense - better
> suggestions for solving our quality problems would be highly welcome...

Just one comment.

We don't try to recruit new skilled testers - it's a big problem.
Skilled tester can narrow down the problem, try to fix it etc. There
are too many "something between 2.6.10 and 2.6.21 broke my laptop"


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists