linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

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: <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 16:09:05 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

* Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> [180503 22:44]:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > As for -next, me and others stopped reporting bugs in it, because when we do
> > we tend to get flamed for the "noise". Is anyone aware (or cares) that mips
> > and nds32 images don't build ? Soaking clothes in an empty bathtub won't make
> > them wet, and bugs in code which no one builds, much less tests or uses, won't
> > be found.
> 
> You've been flamed for testing -next?  That's not been my experience and
> frankly it's pretty horrifying that it's happening.  Testing is pretty
> much the whole point of -next existing in the first place so you have to
> wonder why people are putting their trees there if they don't want
> testing.  I have seen a few issues with people reporting bugs on old
> versions of -next but otherwise...

Yes I agree testing Linux next is very important. That's the best way for
maintainers to ensure a usable -rc1 after a merge window. And then for
the -rc cycle, there not much of need for chasing bugs to get things working.

Bugs reported for Linux next often seem to get fixed or reverted faster
compared to the -rc cycle too. I think that's because people realize that
their code will not get merged until it's been fixed.

So some daily testing of Linux next can save a lot scrambling after the
merge window :)

Users don't usually upgrade kernels until after later -rc releases or only
after major releases so that probably explains some of the -rc cycle fixes.

Regards,

Tony