[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZATC3djtr9/uPX+P@duo.ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:18:35 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process
Hi!
> > So to summarize, that buggy commit was backported even though:
> >
> > * There were no indications that it was a bug fix (and thus potentially
> > suitable for stable) in the first place.
> > * On the AUTOSEL thread, someone told you the commit is broken.
> > * There was already a thread that reported a regression caused by the commit.
> > Easily findable via lore search.
> > * There was also already a pending patch that Fixes the commit. Again easily
> > findable via lore search.
> >
> > So it seems a *lot* of things went wrong, no? Why? If so many things can go
> > wrong, it's not just a "mistake" but rather the process is the problem...
>
> BTW, another cause of this is that the commit (66f99628eb24) was AUTOSEL'd after
> only being in mainline for 4 days, and *released* in all LTS kernels after only
> being in mainline for 12 days. Surely that's a timeline befitting a critical
> security vulnerability, not some random neural-network-selected commit that
> wasn't even fixing anything?
I see this problem, too, "-stable" is more experimental than Linus's
releases.
I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists