linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

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]

Message-Id: <20071113130411.26ccae12.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:04:11 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:00:30 +0100 (CET) Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think that we're fairly good about working the regressions in
> > Adrian/Michal/Rafael's lists but once Linus releases 2.6.x we tend to let
> > the unsolved ones slide, and we don't pay as much attention to the
> > regressions which 2.6.x testers report.
> 
> Can't we wait until all regressions[0] are fixed before releasing a new 
> 2.6.x? I'd consider regressions a *literal* show stopper, and with this 
> policy they just have be fixed, nothing would "slide"...
> 

Problem is that everyone would then sit around pumping shiny new features
into their trees waiting until someone else fixes the regressions.

There are a number of process things we _could_ do.  Like

- have bugfix-only kernel releases

- Just refuse to merge any non-bugfix patches for a subsystem when it is
  determined that the subsystem has "too many" regressions.

- Create an "if you added a regression, you should fix some other bug
  too" rule.

- probably other stuff.

But we can't/shouldn't do any of that until it is generally agreed that we
have a problem and that the problem is of sufficient magnitude that process
changes are needed to address it.  We aren't at that stage yet.

Here's an important point: developers have a fixed amount of development
time.  They spend some of that time fixing bugs and the rest of that time
on <otherstuff>.  And while one could cook up all sorts of wonderful
process changes, they all would be aimed at a single thing: shifting some
of the developers' time away from <otherstuff> and onto bugfixing.

At this stage the only tool which is being deployed to attempt to bring
about that reprioritisation is suasion.  aka "lkml flamewar".

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/