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: <20180416211845.GP2341@sasha-vm>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:18:47 +0000
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
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, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:43:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>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.

I agree that as an enterprise distro taking everything from -stable
isn't the best idea. Ideally you'd want to be close to the first
extreme you've mentioned and only take commits if customers are asking
you to do so.

I think that the rule we're trying to agree upon is the "It must fix
a real bug that bothers people".

I think that we can agree that it's impossible to expect every single
Linux user to go on LKML and complain about a bug he encountered, so the
rule quickly becomes "It must fix a real bug that can bother people".

My "aggressiveness" comes from the whole "bother" part: it doesn't have
to be critical, it doesn't have to cause data corruption, it doesn't
have to be a security issue. It's enough that the bug actually affects a
user in a way he didn't expect it to (if a user doesn't have
expectations, it would fall under the "This could be a problem..."
exception.

We can go into a discussion about what exactly "bothering" is, but on
the flip side, the whole -stable tag is just a way for folks to indicate
they want a given patch reviewed for stable, it's not actually a
guarantee of whether the patch will go in to -stable or not.