netdev - Re: AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: [2.6.39 regression] X locks up hard right after logging in)

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, 13 May 2011 11:48:54 -0700
From:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Johannes Sixt <j6t@...g.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
	Christian Couder <christian.couder@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	git@...r.kernel.org, Shuang He <shuang.he@...el.com>
Subject: Re: AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: [2.6.39 regression] X locks up
 hard right after logging in)

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> When you say that v2.6.38 is good, that means that everything that can
> be reached from 2.6.38 is good.
>
> NOT AT ALL the same thing as "git bisect requires v2.6.38" would be.
>
> The "requires v2.6.38" would basically say that anything that doesn't
> contain v2.6.38 is "off-limits". It's fine to call them "good", but
> that's not the same thing as "git bisect good v2.6.38".
>
> Why?
>
> Think about it. It's the "reachable from v2.6.38" vs "cannot reach
> v2.6.38" difference. That's a HUGE difference.

Could you please clarify "off-limits"?

Do you mean "anything before v2.6.38 did not even have this feature, so
the result of testing a version in that range does not give us any
information"?  The feature didn't even exist, so a bug can never trigger,
and seeing "good" from such a version does not mean everything reachable
from it is good?  Upon seeing "bad" result from a version before v2.6.38,
what can we conclude?  The breakage cannot possibly come from the feature
that is being checked, so the procedure to check itself is busted?

--
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