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]

Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 14:51:18 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:59:18PM -0700, David Lang wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 May 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>>>There's no one, for example, who picked up vanilla v4.16 and plans to
>>>keep using it for a year.
>>
>>Actually, at a prior job I would do almost exactly that.
>>
>>I never intended to go a year without updating, but it would happen if
>>nothing came up that was related to the hardware/features I was
>>running.
>>
>>so 'no one uses the Linus kernel is false.
>
> My point is not that "no one ever uses Linus kernel" but that no one
> takes one of those kernels and plans to stick with it for 3 months until
> the next one comes up, even if there are updates relevant to that user.
>
> Yes, some users will use a .0 release until either Greg releases a
> -stable, or until the next -rc is out.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that there is that the .0 release makes some
> people rush poorly tested commits in it even though the .0 release is
> not significant in any way.

I think we should take pride in our releases, so I disagree that it is
insignificant. If a maintainer is rushing things into late rc's and
breaking things then they need that feedback, not de-emphasize the
importance of ".0" releases. Could the bar be raised higher on late
fixes, perhaps. I otherwise think the message is already clear
"changes at -rc6,7,8 had better be worthy of and coming in late and be
accompanied with good explanation".