netdev - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for representors

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <41174e71-00e1-aebf-b67d-1b24731e4ab3@solarflare.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:18:38 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
CC:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Netdev List" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for
 representors

Firstly, let me apologise: my previous email was too harsh and too
 assertiveabout things that were really more uncertain and unclear.

On 14/04/2020 21:57, Sasha Levin wrote:
> I've pointed out that almost 50% of commits tagged for stable do not
> have a fixes tag, and yet they are fixes. You really deduce things based
> on coin flip probability?
Yes, but far less than 50% of commits *not* tagged for stable have a fixes
 tag.  It's not about hard-and-fast Aristotelian "deductions", like "this
 doesn't have Fixes:, therefore it is not a stable candidate", it's about
 probabilistic "induction".

> "it does increase the amount of countervailing evidence needed to
> conclude a commit is a fix" - Please explain this argument given the
> above.
Are you familiar with Bayesian statistics?  If not, I'd suggest reading
 something like http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ which explains it.
There's a big difference between a coin flip and a _correlated_ coin flip.

> This is great, but the kernel is more than just net/. Note that I also
> do not look at net/ itself, but rather drivers/net/ as those end up with
> a bunch of missed fixes.
drivers/net/ goes through the same DaveM net/net-next trees, with the
 same rules.
>> To be honest, that this needs to be explained to you does not inspire
>> confidence in the quality of your autoselection process...
>
> Nothing like a personal attack or two to try and make a point?
It wasn't meant as a personal attack, more as an "it's worrying that this
 is not known to the people doing the stable selection".  But I did agonise
 over whether to say that and now wish I hadn't; sorry.  (I'm not exactly
 my best self right now, what with all the lockdown cabin fever.)

-ed