From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 393311117 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:06:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02on0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.120]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6472713 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:06:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Sasha Levin To: Laura Abbott Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:06:24 +0000 Message-ID: <20180907150623.GH16300@sasha-vm> References: <20180904201620.GC16300@sasha-vm> <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <2534be10-2e70-6932-39c1-7caca2cff044@roeck-us.net> <4990d2c1-6f26-0500-9afa-986a61fce3bf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4990d2c1-6f26-0500-9afa-986a61fce3bf@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 07:37:06AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: >On 09/06/2018 07:52 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>On 09/06/2018 06:49 PM, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss wrote: >>> >>>This is a *huge* reason why we see regressions in Stable. Take a look at >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flists= .linuxfoundation.org%2Fpipermail%2Fksummit-discuss%2F2018-September%2F00528= 7.html&data=3D02%7C01%7CAlexander.Levin%40microsoft.com%7Cf206ee69bd714= 52d0d8d08d614cf64a5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6367192783= 16194423&sdata=3DrYS7lCcdGMzo0kbFowVot790z8GV2Alr1ynEBd1X6qA%3D&res= erved=3D0 >>>for a list of recent user visible regressions the CoreOS folks have >>>observed this year. Do you want to know when they were merged? Let me >>>help you: all but one were merged in -rc5 or later. >>> >> >>My conclusion from that would be that patches are applied to stable >>before they had time to soak in mainline. Your argument against >>accepting patches into mainline might as well be applied to patches >>applied to stable. >> >>I think you are a bit hypocritical arguing that patches should be >>restricted from being accepted into mainline ... when at the same >>time patches are at least sometimes applied almost immediately to >>stable releases from there. Plus, some if not many of the patches >>applied to stable releases nowadays don't really fix critical or >>even severe bugs. If the patches mentioned above indeed caused >>regressions in mainline, those regressions should have been found >>and fixed _before_ the patches made it into stable releases. >>Blaming mainline for the problem is just shifting the blame. >> >>I would argue that, if anything, the rules for accepting patches into >>_stable_ releases should be much more strict than they are today. >>If anything, we need to look into that, not into restricting patch >>access to mainline. > >Part of my proposal for a longer -rc time for stable was for this >exact problem: patches that have been merged in mainline but >tagged for stable may not have had time to test to find all >bugs. The thought was a longer stable -rc cycle would help >in finding those. I think you've hit upon the real problem >though which is that the patches probably shouldn't have been >in stable in the first place. Let me use the CoreOS example here again. Here are the 5 user visible stable regressions they had this year: 8844618d8aa ("ext4: only look at the bg_flags field if it is valid") f46ecbd97f5 ("cifs: Fix slab-out-of-bounds in send_set_info() on SMB2 ACE setting") a6f81fcb2c3 ("tcp: avoid integer overflows in tcp_rcv_space_adjust()") 7b2ee50c0cd ("hv_netvsc: common detach logic") f599c64fdf7 ("xen-netfront: Fix race between device setup and open") a93bf0ff449 ("vxlan: update skb dst pmtu on tx path") Which of those patches would you not take in a stable tree in the first place? -- Thanks, Sasha=