Message-ID: <1373951852.2148.9.camel@dabdike>
Subject: Re: KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the
 cc: stable tag
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:17:32 +0400
In-Reply-To: <20130715214422.GA2478@kroah.com>
References: <1373916476.2748.69.camel@dabdike>
	 <20130715214422.GA2478@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 6235
Lines: 119

On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> > about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> > which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
> > 
> > The problem, as Ji???? Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
> > are finding stable less useful because it contains to much stuff they'd
> > classify as not stable material.
> > 
> > The question that arises from this is who is stable aiming at ...
> > because if it's the distributions (and that's what people seem to be
> > using it for) then we need to take this feedback seriously.
> > 
> > The next question is how should we, the maintainers, be policing commits
> > to stable.  As I think has been demonstrated in the discussion the
> > "stable rules" are more sort of guidelines (apologies for the pirates
> > reference).  In many ways, this is as it should be, because people
> > should have enough taste to know what constitutes a stable fix.  The
> > real root cause of the problem is that the cc: stable tag can't be
> > stripped once it's in the tree, so maintainers only get to police things
> > they put in the tree.  Stuff they pull from others is already tagged and
> > that tag can't be changed.  This effectively pushes the problem out to
> > the lowest (and possibly more inexperienced) leaves of the Maintainer
> > tree.  In theory we have a review stage for stable, but the review
> > patches don't automatically get routed to the right mailing list and the
> > first round usually comes out in the merge window when Maintainers'
> > attention is elsewhere.
> > 
> > The solution, to me, looks simple:  Let's co-opt a process we already
> > know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling.  So the proposal
> > is simple:
> > 
> >      1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add an ill
> >         reviewed patch to stable
> >      2. All patches to stable should follow current review rules: They
> >         should go to the mailing list the original patch was sent to
> >         once the original is upstream as a request for stable.
> >      3. Following debate on the list, the original maintainer would be
> >         responsible for collecting the patches (including the upstream
> >         commit) adjudicating on them and passing them on to stable after
> >         list review (either by git tree pull or email to stable@).
> > 
> > I contend this raises the bar for adding patches to stable much higher,
> > which seems to be needed, and adds a review stage which involves all the
> > original reviewers.
> 
> I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
> the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
> subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.

Well, I think of this as a feature not a bug because it enables scaling,
but we can certainly debate the topic; it's probably one of the more
important things that should be discussed.

> Stable tree stuff should cause almost _no_ extra burden on the kernel
> developers, because it is something that I, and a few other people, have
> agreed to do with our time.  It has taken me 8 _years_ to finally get
> maintainers to agree to mark stuff for the stable tree, and fine-tune a
> development process that makes it easy for us to do this backport work.
> 
> I _want_ the exact same commit that is in Linus's tree for the backport
> because if I have to rely on a maintainer to do the backport and resend
> it, I _know_ it will usually be a changed patch, and the git commit id
> will be lost.

This is fixable with process and tools, surely.

It's always surprised me that the number one stable_kernel_rules.txt
rule wasn't you have tobe upstream and label in the the first line with
Upstream-Commit: commitid.  (I know it's in the procedure, but that's
not rules).  But if it were, a script can reject with a response all
non-conforming emails.  Now you have the commitid, interdiff can tell
you if it's the same patch as went into the kernel, so you can put this
into the automatic apply queue.  Everything else goes into a different
queue.

> I know this because it happens today.  I get patches from maintainers
> that are radically changed from what is in Linus's tree without any
> justification for why that is.  That's not ok.

So you could even script this.  An automatic request for justification
of patches that interdiff flags as being different (or a request to
resubmit with the identical diff so they pass the interdiff test).

> Let me work with the distros on the issues they have raised.  So far I
> have the following issues they have complained about:
>   - patches that shouldn't be there because they don't really do
>     anything.
>   - patches that aren't obvious why they are there.
> 
> The first one I am going to be pushing back on, and have already, much
> to the dismay of some subsystem maintainers.
> 
> The second one is almost always due to security issues that were unknown
> to the distro.  The announcement of security problems to the distros has
> now been addressed, and since that has changed, I haven't heard any
> problems about this.
> 
> Have I missed anything else that the distros are objecting to?  The
> "smaller" distros (i.e. ones without lots of kernel developers) have
> been giving me nothing but _thanks_ and appreciation with the way that
> I've been sucking in all of the different fixes.  Do we want to mess
> with a process that is really working out well for them, and only causes
> annoyance at times by the larger ones?

I still think the scaling problem remains plus, if you push back more,
it's going to increase friction: you aren't necessarily in the best
position to know what should be a stable fix for a given subsystem, and
if you push back incorrectly it's going to annoy the maintainer.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/