netdev - Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

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: <473A067F.3090007@rtr.ca>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:18:07 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, protasnb@...il.com,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:32AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> ..
>>> This is all QA-101 that _cannot be argued against on a rational basis_, 
>>> it's just that these sorts of things have been largely ignored for 
>>> years, in favor of the all-too-easy "open source means many eyeballs and 
>>> that is our QA" answer, which is a _good_ answer but by far not the most 
>>> intelligent answer! Today "many eyeballs" is simply not good enough and 
>>> nature (and other OS projects) will route us around if we dont change.
>> ..
>>
>> QA-101 and "many eyeballs" are not at all in opposition.
>> The latter is how we find out about bugs on uncommon hardware,
>> and the former is what we need to track them and overall quality.
>>
>> A HUGE problem I have with current "efforts", is that once someone
>> reports a bug, the onus seems to be 99% on the *reporter* to find
>> the exact line of code or commit.  Ghad what a repressive method.
> 
> 99% on the reporter?  Is that why I always try to understand the
> reporters problem (*provided* it's in an area I know about) and come
> up with a patch to test a theory or fix the issue?
..

Same here.

I just find it weird that something can be known broken for several -rc*
kernels before I happen to install it, discover it's broken on my own machine,
and then I track it down, fix it, and submit the patch, generally all within a
couple of hours.  Where the heck was the dude(ess) that broke it ??  AWOL.

And when I receive hostility from the "maintainers" of said code for fixing
their bugs, well.. that really motivates me to continue reporting new ones..

> I'm _less_ inclined to provide such a "service" for lazy maintainers
> who've moved off into new and wonderfully exciting technologies, to
> churn out more patches for me to merge (and eventually provide a free
> to them bug fixing service for.)
> 
> That's "less" inclined, not "won't".
> 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html