linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug validation

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: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:45:49 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug
 validation

On 29.02.24 22:55, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 19/02/2024 23:07, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> writes:
>>
>>> Replace the existing brief explanation on bisecting regressions with a
>>> text describing the whole process from beginning to end -- while also
>>> describing how to validate if a problem is still present in mainline.
>>> This "two in one" approach is possible, as checking whenever a bug is in
>>> mainline is one of the first steps before performing a bisection anyway
>>> and thus described. Due to this approach the text also works quite
>>> nicely in conjunction with
>>> Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst, as it covers all typical
>>> cases where users will need to build a kernel in exactly the same order.
>>
>> I have scanned over this; don't really have a time to do a detailed
>> reading at this point.  My overall impression is: it's useful
>> information, but I think we're going to overwhelm people.  I worry that
>> we're replacing a one-page file on how to do a bisect with a 1,900-line
>> beast.  I suspect there are whole classes of readers who want the new
>> stuff, but there are others who would be better served by something much
>> more terse.
> 
> My vote would be to include the new document "soon" (perhaps after
> Petr's extensive comments have been addressed),

I just sent v2 out to enable this, which...

> but keep the existing, short document around as well.

..left that document untouched. It will look a bit odd in the index,
which is a bit odd, but not a huge problem either I guess.

> I also think the best feedback is going to come from users attempting
> to use these steps for their real regressions. Once merged, we
> (Thorsten or anybody) can attempt to incorporate that feedback in
> increments.

Yeah, sounds good!

Ciao, Thorsten