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 220EEA7B for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from userp2130.oracle.com (userp2130.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C3F7C6 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:32:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:32:13 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Sasha Levin Message-ID: <20180907213212.xrgsle6modrz6ss5@mwanda> 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> <20180907150623.GH16300@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180907150623.GH16300@sasha-vm> 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 03:06:24PM +0000, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > 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") The fix was 501228470077 ("ext4: fix check to prevent initializing reserved inodes"). The bug was found by running the test suite but with nojournal? > f46ecbd97f5 ("cifs: Fix slab-out-of-bounds in send_set_info() on SMB2 > ACE setting") What was the bug with this one? > a6f81fcb2c3 ("tcp: avoid integer overflows in tcp_rcv_space_adjust()") My understanding was that this one was applied without a patch it depended on? 02db55718d53 ("tcp: do not overshoot window_clamp in tcp_rcv_space_adjust()") > 7b2ee50c0cd ("hv_netvsc: common detach logic") The patch summary sells this as a cleanup but it's a bugfix. The fix for it was commit 52acf73b6e9a ("hv_netvsc: Fix a network regression after ifdown/ifup"). It took two months for anyone to notice the if up/down sometimes fails. Are there any standard tests for network drivers? There is no way we're going to hold back the patch for two months. > f599c64fdf7 ("xen-netfront: Fix race between device setup and open") Two bugs: cb257783c292 ("xen-netfront: Fix mismatched rtnl_unlock") 45c8184c1bed ("xen-netfront: Update features after registering netdev") We should add a static checker warning to prevent the first one from re-occuring. Just send an email to Julia or me. For the second one, it really feels like we should have a test suite to see if setting the MTU works. > a93bf0ff449 ("vxlan: update skb dst pmtu on tx path") The fix was commit f15ca723c1eb ("net: don't call update_pmtu unconditionally"). Why does this patch add a NULL check for "dst"? Is that required? The original code generated a static checker warning for me that "error: potential null dereference 'dst'. (skb_dst returns null)". I have 54 places where the skb_dst() return isn't checked but I don't really understand the code so I ignore those. regards, dan carpenter