linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] probes: Update for v6.18

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: <20251006210139.122cad3973a85f93601082fa@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:01:39 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>, Thorsten Blum
 <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] probes: Update for v6.18

On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:09:02 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 at 17:27, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I applogise this error. I locally ran build tests and it passed.
> > But I might missed something.
> 
> So this is why linux-next exists - to get testing with different
> configurations, different compiler versions, different architectures
> etc.

Yes, I have noticed the limitations of creating a local test environment,
and I would like to utilize linux-next.

> 
> Local build tests are good, and obviously necessary for some very basic testing.
> 
> And local build test can be perfectly sufficient - if it's some small
> obvious fix, it's often simply not worth it waiting for a few days for
> linux-next to get it merged and tested.
> 
> And no, linux-next isn't perfect, and won't find everything anyway.
> 
> And even the most trivial small change that quite reasonably didn't go
> through linux-next because it was so simple can also end up breaking
> things.
> 
> So none of this is some kind of "absolute black-and-white rule", and
> none of this _guarantees_ that everything always works.
> 
> Even when everybody does the best they can, something will
> occasionally be missed. I definitely accept that we're not perfect.
> 
> But big new features coming in during the merge window had better be
> extensively checked _some_ way.

Yes, that was my fault.

> 
> If I find problems in my fairly limited sanity-check build tests, I get unhappy.
> 
> It's one thing if it's some little mistake that I feel reasonably
> missed testing for some understandable reason.
> 
> But if I get the feeling that the problem was that there just wasn't
> enough care to begin with, that's when I go "nope, this will need to
> wait for another release and be done properly".
> 
> And that's what happened this time around. That wasn't some trivial
> little change, and it clearly didn't get a lot of coverage testing.

I'm very sorry about causing this.

> 
> It should have gone through linux-next, and the problem would have
> been found there instead of when I tried to merge it.

Next time I'm sure the features are at least tested on linux-next.
I'm trying to update my PR checker to check it too.

> 
>                Linus


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>