linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.26-rc9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25

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: <20080706230610.GK21669@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jul 2008 02:06:10 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@...monizer.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25

On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 03:27:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > When did you tell me that maintainers should not or cannot be Cc'ed on 
> > regression reports?
> 
> That is not what I'm complaining about.

That is what I wrote in the part of my email you made this comment on.

> I'm complaining about the fact that you *always* argue against closing 
> bugreports.

I'm not always against closing bugs, and e.g. during the last years I've
closed at about 500 bugs in the kernel Bugzilla due to submitters having
vanished.

> You have argued against it for over a YEAR now. And every single time I 
> tell you that you are wrong, and exactly *why* you are wrong.
> 
> If a reporter doesn't respond to say "it's still open", it needs to be 
> closed. It doesn't matter one whit whether there has been developer action 
> on it or not. We cannot keep old reports open - it's a total waste for 
> developers to even _look_ at anything that is more than roughly a month 
> old and hasn't been verified to be still be an issue.

We only differ on whether a human should ask this question once before 
closing a bug or whether regular automated requests are enough.

E.g. although Andrew has't responded to Rafaels emails for nearly a 
month whether the slab corruption he reported is still present I 
wouldn't take this as a definitive indication that he won't answer when 
someone has a question. I'd bet Andrew will answer if a human asks him 
about the status of this regression.

A developer asking manually "Is this still present?" does cost nearly no 
time and gives the submitter a much better feeling than only automated 
emails and then a bug close.

> 			Linus

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/