From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 21:38:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/0i5pGYjrVw59Kk@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y/0U8tpNkgePu00M@sashalap>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 03:39:14PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > So to summarize, that buggy commit was backported even though:
> > >
> > > * There were no indications that it was a bug fix (and thus potentially
> > > suitable for stable) in the first place.
> > > * On the AUTOSEL thread, someone told you the commit is broken.
> > > * There was already a thread that reported a regression caused by the commit.
> > > Easily findable via lore search.
> > > * There was also already a pending patch that Fixes the commit. Again easily
> > > findable via lore search.
> > >
> > > So it seems a *lot* of things went wrong, no? Why? If so many things can go
> > > wrong, it's not just a "mistake" but rather the process is the problem...
> >
> > BTW, another cause of this is that the commit (66f99628eb24) was AUTOSEL'd after
> > only being in mainline for 4 days, and *released* in all LTS kernels after only
> > being in mainline for 12 days. Surely that's a timeline befitting a critical
> > security vulnerability, not some random neural-network-selected commit that
> > wasn't even fixing anything?
>
> I would love to have a mechanism that tells me with 100% confidence if a
> given commit fixes a bug or not, could you provide me with one?
Just because you can't be 100% certain whether a commit is a fix doesn't mean
you should be rushing to backport random commits that have no indications they
are fixing anything.
> w.r.t timelines, this is something that was discussed on the mailing
> list a few years ago where we decided that giving AUTOSEL commits 7 days
> of soaking time is sufficient, if anything changed we can have this
> discussion again.
Nothing has changed, but that doesn't mean that your process is actually
working. 7 days might be appropriate for something that looks like a security
fix, but not for a random commit with no indications it is fixing anything.
BTW, based on that example it's not even 7 days between AUTOSEL and patch
applied, but actually 7 days from AUTOSEL to *release*. So e.g. if someone
takes just a 1 week vacation, in that time a commit they would have NAK'ed can
be AUTOSEL'ed and pushed out across all LTS kernels...
> Note, however, that it's not enough to keep pointing at a tiny set and
> using it to suggest that the entire process is broken. How many AUTOSEL
> commits introduced a regression? How many -stable tagged ones did? How
> many bugs did AUTOSEL commits fix?
So basically you don't accept feedback from individual people, as individual
people don't have enough data?
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-27 21:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20230226034256.771769-1-sashal@kernel.org>
2023-02-26 3:42 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.1 07/21] fs: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() when kernel bugs are detected Sasha Levin
2023-02-26 3:42 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.1 12/21] fs/super.c: stop calling fscrypt_destroy_keyring() from __put_super() Sasha Levin
2023-02-26 4:07 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-26 5:30 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-26 19:24 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-26 19:33 ` Slade Watkins
2023-02-27 14:18 ` Sasha Levin
2023-02-27 17:47 ` AUTOSEL process Eric Biggers
2023-02-27 18:06 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-27 20:39 ` Sasha Levin
2023-02-27 21:38 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2023-02-27 22:35 ` Sasha Levin
2023-02-27 22:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-02-28 0:52 ` Sasha Levin
2023-02-28 1:25 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-28 4:25 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-30 0:08 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-30 14:05 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-30 17:22 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-30 17:50 ` Sasha Levin
2023-02-28 0:32 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-28 1:53 ` Sasha Levin
2023-02-28 3:41 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-28 10:41 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-02-28 11:28 ` Greg KH
2023-03-01 2:05 ` Slade Watkins
2023-03-01 5:13 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-01 6:09 ` Greg KH
2023-03-01 7:22 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-01 7:40 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-01 8:31 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-01 8:43 ` Greg KH
2023-03-01 6:06 ` Greg KH
2023-03-01 7:05 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-01 10:31 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2023-03-01 13:26 ` Mark Brown
2023-02-28 17:03 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-10 23:07 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 13:41 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-11 15:54 ` James Bottomley
2023-03-11 18:07 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-12 19:03 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-03-07 21:18 ` Pavel Machek
2023-03-07 21:45 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 6:25 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-03-11 8:11 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-11 11:45 ` Pavel Machek
2023-03-11 12:29 ` Greg KH
2023-03-21 12:41 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2023-03-11 14:06 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-11 16:16 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-03-11 17:48 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 18:26 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-11 18:54 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 19:01 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 21:14 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-12 8:04 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-03-12 16:00 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-13 17:41 ` Greg KH
2023-03-13 18:54 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-14 18:26 ` Greg KH
2023-03-11 20:17 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 21:02 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-12 4:23 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-11 18:33 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-11 19:24 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 19:46 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-11 20:19 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-11 20:59 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-11 20:11 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-11 20:53 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-12 4:32 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-12 5:21 ` Eric Biggers
2023-03-12 5:48 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-12 7:42 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-03-12 13:34 ` Mark Brown
2023-03-12 15:57 ` Sasha Levin
2023-03-12 13:55 ` Mark Brown
2023-03-11 22:38 ` David Laight
2023-03-12 4:41 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-12 5:09 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-03-14 14:12 ` Jan Kara
2023-03-13 3:37 ` Bagas Sanjaya
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=Y/0i5pGYjrVw59Kk@gmail.com \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).