ksummit.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] ABI feature gates?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:16:44 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUb0mJEdL48gq9K2RoqULuwgs==CeXRCNw9+3R2BwkXVw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

[Note: I'm not entirely sure I can make it to the kernel summit this
year, due to having a tiny person and tons of travel]

This may be highly controversial, but: there seems to be a weakness in
the kernel development model in the way that new ABI features become
stable.  The current model is, roughly:

1. Someone writes the code.  Maybe they cc linux-abi, maybe they don't.
2. People hopefully review the code.
3. A subsystem maintainer merges the code.  They hope the ABI is right.
4. Linus gets a pull request.  Linus probably doesn't review the ABI
for sanity, style, blatant bugs, etc.  If Linus did, then he'd never
get anything else done.
5. The new ABI lands in -rc1.
6. If someone finds a problem or objects, it had better get fixed
before the next real release.

There's a few problems here.  One is that the people who would really
review the ABI might not even notice until step 5 or 6 or so.  Another
is that it takes some time for userspace to get experience with a new
ABI.

I'm wondering if there are other models that could work.  I think it
would be nice for us to be able to land a kernel in Linus tree and
still wait a while before stabilizing it.  Rust, for example, has a
strict policy for this that seems to work quite well.

Maybe we could pull something off where big new features hide behind a
named feature gate for a while.  That feature gate can only be enabled
under some circumstances that make it very hard to mistake it for true
stability.  (For example, maybe you *can't* enable feature gates on a
final kernel unless you manually patch something.)

Here are a few examples that come to mind for where this would have helped:

 - Whatever that new RDMA socket type was that was deemed totally
broken but only just after it hit a real release.
 - O_TMPFILE.  I discovered that it corrupted filesystems in -rc6 or
-rc7.  That got fixed, the the API is still a steaming pile of crap.
 - Some cgroup+bpf stuff that got cleaned up in a -rc7 or so a few releases ago.

I'm sure there are tons more.

Is this too crazy, or is it worth discussing?

             reply	other threads:[~2017-08-04  1:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-04  1:16 Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2017-08-04  1:30 ` Greg KH
2017-08-04  4:15   ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-04  5:08   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-08-04  8:23   ` Daniel Vetter
2017-08-04  2:26 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-04  3:27   ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-08-04  5:13     ` Julia Lawall
2017-08-04 14:20       ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-04 15:47         ` Julia Lawall
2017-08-04  8:42   ` Jiri Kosina
2017-08-04  8:53     ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-08-04 16:04       ` Greg KH
2017-08-04 17:14         ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-04 17:53           ` Greg KH
2017-08-04 22:52             ` Joe Perches
2017-08-09 20:06             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-08-14 19:49         ` Steven Rostedt
2017-08-14 19:51           ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-15  7:13             ` Julia Lawall
2017-08-04  8:57     ` Julia Lawall
2017-08-04 11:27       ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-08-09  0:00 ` NeilBrown
2017-08-09 11:54   ` Laurent Pinchart
2017-08-14 20:07     ` Steven Rostedt
2017-08-09 20:21   ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-11  6:21     ` NeilBrown
2017-08-11  6:39       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-11  8:02         ` NeilBrown
2017-08-11 23:10           ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-14  4:19             ` NeilBrown
2017-08-14 18:34               ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-14 18:40                 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-14 23:23                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-15  0:54                     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-15 16:11                       ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-15 18:26   ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CALCETrUb0mJEdL48gq9K2RoqULuwgs==CeXRCNw9+3R2BwkXVw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox