linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline

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:	Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> At Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT),
> David Lang wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>
>>> And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
>>> dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
>>> we rely on -stable to merge the 10 fixes, and on the other case we'd rely
>>> on -stable to just revert one of them.
>>
>> Apologies for the late post, I'm catching up on things, but this jumped out at
>> me.
>>
>> We went through a LOT of pain several years ago when people got into the mindset
>> that a patch was acceptable if it fixed more people than it broke. eliminating
>> that mindset did wonders for kernel stability.
>>
>> Regressions are a lot more of a negative than bugfixes are a positive, a 10:1
>> ratio of fixes to regressions is _not_ good enough.
>
> IMO, one of the reasons is the nature of stable-release: the stable
> tree is released soon after reviews of patches, so no actual
> regression tests can be done before the release.
>
> For finding a regression, patch reviews won't be enough; all patches
> have been already reviewed, thus essentially they must be all
> positive/good fixes.  And the compile is OK.  So what's the problem?
>
> Maybe some QA period before the release might help, but who would
> care?  (Especially under the situation where everybody has own x.y
> stable tree?)

I am not saying that no regressions will happen (for exactly the reasons that 
you are giving).

what I am complaining about is the attitude that a few regressions are Ok, as 
long as there are more fixes than there are regressions.

David Lang
--
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/