linux-kernel - Re: 3 more broken Zaurii

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c76eae67-b391-a39e-a907-988b8277a72b@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 19:09:02 +0200
From:   "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" 
        <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Ross Maynard <bids.7405@...pond.com>,
        Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Subject: Re: 3 more broken Zaurii - SL-5600, A300, C700

On 10.07.23 18:55, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 06:36:32 +0200 Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) wrote:
>> To chime in here: I most agree, but FWIW, it broke more than a decade
>> ago in v3.0, so maybe this is better suited for net-next. But of course
>> that up to the -net maintainers.
> 
> I'm surprised to see you suggest -next for a fix to a user reported bug.
> IMO it's very firmly net material.

Yes, yes, normally it would argue the other way around. :-D

But Linus a few times in one way or another argued that time is a factor
when it comes to regressions. Here for example:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@mail.gmail.com/

But there are no "semantic changes that now mean that fixing the
regression could cause a _new_ regression" here I guess. And what he was
talking about there is quite different from this case as well (I vaguely
remember a better example, but I can't find it; whatever).

In the end this is one of issue where I don't care much. :-D

Ciao, Thorsten