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]

Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1804162238500.28129@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:43:28 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        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, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:

> So I think that Linus's claim that users come first applies here as
> well. If there's a user that cares about a particular feature being
> broken, then we go ahead and fix his bug rather then ignoring him.

So one extreme is fixing -stable *iff* users actually do report an issue.

The other extreme is backporting everything that potentially looks like a 
potential fix of "something" (according to some arbitrary metric), 
pro-actively.

The former voilates the "users first" rule, the latter has a very, very 
high risk of regressions.

So this whole debate is about finding a compromise.

My gut feeling always was that the statement in

	Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst

is very reasonable, but making the process way more "aggresive" when 
backporting patches is breaking much of its original spirit for me.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs