linux-kernel - Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

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: <CAHk-=wjDo9gr8gD+XcWBjvNCSZg=GbmfqtM13o0tAtWrGY8zQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:56:13 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 at 12:44, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 02:36:39PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> >
> >Would it be difficult to catch branches that change things outside their
> >scope without correct SOB/RB/Acks?  Asking for a friend...
>
> Up to the guy in charge... I don't want to attempt and monitor a policy
> that won't be enforced :)
>
> If Linus wants to add this to the workflow (which is doable), then an
> explicit ack would be great.

Has this been a huge deal?  There are things like ABI changes
(function renames, dropping or adding arguments etc etc) that will
inevitably end up tree-wide, and honestly, it would often be totally
frustrating trying to get acks from every maintainer.

Is it hugely common? No. But still, I'm not convinced there is a sane
model for "outside their scope".

I mean, sure, if the change comes from an individual driver or
filesystem or something like that, then it generally has no business
touching anything else. So it *can* be an issue, but I don't see how
to sanely automate this kind of thing without it becoming a potential
huge annoyance.

Maybe other people don't mind, but I personally hate false positives
that you are then supposed to ignore when appropriate. It just makes
people ignore the things they *should* care about.

                 Linus