linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: don't use crs for root if we only have one root bus

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: <1245914906.3116.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:58:26 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: don't use crs for root if we only have one
 root bus

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> wrote:
> 
> > > [ There's a difference between "we're supposed to find and fix bugs
> > > in the -rc series", and "I release known-buggy -rc1's since we're
> > > supposed to fix it later". For similar reasons, I hate pulling
> > > known-buggy stuff during the merge window - it's ok if it shows
> > > itself to be buggy _later_, but if people send me stuff that they
> > > know is buggy as they send it to me, then that's a problem. ]
> > 
> > Yeah, 100% agreed.  I didn't hear any reports until after people 
> > started using your tree, so I think this case was handled 
> > correctly: push something that *seems* ok upstream, but with eyes 
> > wide open for the possibility we'd need to revert.
> 
> There's only one small gripe i have with the handling of it: the 
> timing. "9e9f46c: PCI: use ACPI _CRS data by default" was written 
> and committed on June 11th, two days _after_ the merge window 
> opened.
> 
> That's way too late for maybe-broken changes to x86 lowlevel details 
> (especially if it touches hw-environmental interaction - which is 
> very hard to test with meaningful coverage), and it's also pretty 
> much the worst moment to solicit testing from people who are busy 
> getting their stuff to Linus and who are busy testing out any of the 
> unexpected interactions and bugs.
> 
> So this was, to a certain degree, a predictable outcome. Trees in 
> the Linux "critical path" of testing (core kernel, x86, core 
> networking, very common drivers, PCI, driver core, VFS, etc.) should 
> generally try to cool down 1-2 weeks before the merge window - 
> because breakage there can do a lot of knock-on cascading damage. 
> Two weeks is not a lot of time and the effects of showstopper bugs 
> get magnified disproportionately.
> 

Yes, I was also thinking about this when I checked the commit date. And
totally agree with Ingo's suggestions.

Thanks,
--
JSR

--
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/