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]

Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:54:16 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> Not if you said their regression causing patches will get reverted unless it
> can be fixed for release.

Actually, I'm pretty happy reverting patches that cause regressions even 
if it *can* be "fixed for release". If there isn't a fix available within 
a day or two, it should get reverted.

The "fix" can then be re-applying the *fixed* patch - and at that point we 
should strive to require the person who re-submits the patch (with fixes) 
having to have an Ack from the person who found the problem in the first 
place, so that it's verified to actually fix things!

So I really would encourage people to send me emails like

	Please revert commit xyz, because it breaks abc, and there is no 
	fix available even though this was reported x days ago.

	I have verified that revert just that change fixes the issue.

and just make the "because it breaks abc" be specific and clear enough 
that I go "Ahh, ok, I'd better revert it".

Also, please notice the latter part of the suggestion above: even if 
somebody has bisected down their problem to a specific commit, I really 
*do* want to hear that actually undoing the commit on top of the current 
tree acually fixes it again, because sometimes that just isn't the case - 
sometimes you end up having various interactions that means that reverting 
a commit might simply not even work.

I have no trouble at all with reverting commits in general. I think 
regressions are serious.

So the problematic cases are the cases where:

 - the commit no longer reverts cleanly, or just otherwise introduces 
   other infrastructure that other commits that already got merged depend 
   on.

   So sometimes you actually need a patch along with the revert (Andrew 
   does that kind of thing anyway, since he works with patches regardless, 
   so the "needs a patch" case is obviously not limited to just the 
   problem cases)

 - more commonly: it's not entirely clear which commit actually caused the 
   problem.

but I *do* want to encourage people to revert (and ask other people to 
revert) much more aggressively. I personally try to revert things that 
people report regressions to me about very actively, unless I know 
somebody already has or is working on a fix.

				Linus
-
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/