linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes

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:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:39:20 +0000
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and
 waiter logic to load balance console writes

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>> >> Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't
>> >> cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe
>> >> designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but
>> >> what's the point?
>> >
>> >There's a tradeoff.
>> >
>> >You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want
>> >regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches
>> >would be nice, too.
>>
>> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the
>> regression rate: how many patches broke something?
>>
>> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were
>> seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing?
>
>Regression rate should not be the only criteria.
>
>More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a
>conflict with something in -stable, for example.

Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no
guarantees for out of tree code, ever.