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: <292de8f0-49e7-49c8-a327-b279924a5794@leemhuis.info>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:46:23 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull
 requests

On 29.10.24 12:30, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:10:25AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> * How does histo.sh handle changes where the commit-id changed between
>> the first time in -next and their merge into Linus' tree  [...
> The "database" the scripts use stores 3 things:
> [...]

Ahh, many thx. And sorry, I should have taken a closer look at query.db,
that is pretty obvious now that I look at it again.

>>> This is where I think the value of linus-next comes during the -rc
>>> cycles: the (89 + 21) commits that haven't gone through the -next
>>> workflow before being pulled.
>>>
>>> I'm not looking to delay the process and
>>> add latency, I'm looking to plug a hole where code would flow directly
>>> to Linus's tree bypassing -next.
>>
>> Overall after all the discussions in this thread I still fail to see why
>> we need a new tree for that. Why not make pending-fixes a bit more
>> prominent while motivating maintainers to have proper -fixes branches
>> included there?
> 
> Because that will add latency: my understanding that we don't want to
> necessarily add another day or two between when fixes are ready and the
> time it would take to get them through linux-next.

Hmmm. After all those mails in this thread improving (and maybe even
separating & somewhat automating[1]) pending-fixes to me still sounds
like time better spend, as then more things could tested before they
even read a PR; but yes, I understand, the timing/order of merges can
mess things up, so testing on PR time has benefits, too.

Maybe I'm just biased, as I could need a better working pending-fixes
for regression tracking[2], as that allows me to ensure regression fixes
are on the right track (which usually is the current merge window and
not the next).

Thx again for the answer! Ciao, Thorsten

[1] yes, I known, there will be conflicts, so some human will need to be
involved

[2] subsystems without -fixes trees or workflows like the one Jiri
suggested recently elsewhere in this thread[3] break this :-/

[3]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/nycvar.YFH.7.76.2410252303270.20286@cbobk.fhfr.pm/