Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
CC:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "w@1wt.eu" <w@1wt.eu>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
Thread-Topic: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
Thread-Index: AQHT4WrQpZfAdTeY4k22b0OVmzGN0aQcksOAgABIXgCAAA4OAIAAORwAgAAI/wCAAO9ygIAADvyAgAADoQA=
Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 16:02:12 +0000
Message-ID: <20180503160210.GO18390@sasha-vm>
References: <20180501163818.GD1468@sasha-vm>
 <CAMuHMdWNFz_9OpddZ6tTaQcNVH01pkhwd0+3Z31uDcZvbkV6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180502195138.GC18390@sasha-vm>
 <CAMuHMdW_i-KQpqMz0zsz77tRcE-Sron5zAyh0SHAOJ5ap7x60w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180503000620.GA29205@thunk.org>
 <ed65dc49-dad0-21a1-676c-f9ba43ba5c6c@roeck-us.net>
 <20180503145533.GK18390@sasha-vm> <20180503154911.GA26754@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180503154911.GA26754@roeck-us.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <A910F29274E2FD4C8E174CBFA990C819@namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8ba1dd16-2a01-4d09-09ec-08d5b10f3bb2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 May 2018 16:02:12.5380
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW2PR2101MB1051
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:49:11AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:55:36PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:38:32PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> >On 05/02/2018 05:06 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> >>On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:41:56PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Between v4.17-rc1 and v4.17-rc3, there are 660 non-merge commits, of =
which
>> >>>   - 245 carry a Fixes tag,
>> >>>   - 196 carry a CC stable,
>> >>>   - 395 contain the string "fix".
>> >>>(non-mutually exclusive)
>> >>>
>> >>>That leaves us with 200 commits not falling in the bugfix category.
>> >>
>> >>Some non-bug fixes are allowed in -rc2.  So perhaps what might be
>> >>interesting is to look at v4.16 (which is completed), and look at the
>> >>distribution of commits:
>> >>
>> >>	* regressions fixes (for bugs introduced during the current
>> >>		release cycle)
>> >>	* "normal" bug fixes
>> >>	* commits which don't touch code (e.g., spelling or
>> >>		documentation-only fixes)
>> >>	* other commits (features or cleanup fixes)
>> >>
>> >>at each rcX level.  The historic "standard" has been feature commits
>> >>in -rc1 and -rc2 (tolerated, but ideally should before the merge
>> >>window), bug fixes / regressions in -rc3 and -rc4, and after -rc4,
>> >>regression fixes only.  It would be interesting to see how well we
>> >>have been holding to the historical ideal.
>> >>
>> >>It would then be intersting to use Sasha's analysis to see whether
>> >>there are more bug fixes caused by regression fixes versus normal bug
>> >>fixes, and whether or not they are common when fixes come "out of
>> >>cycle" --- for example, a non-regression bug fix in -rc5 or -rc6.
>> >>
>> >>Because if that last is the case, then the prescription is very simple
>> >>and not controversial --- bug fixes found post -rc4 should be held to
>> >>the next merge window.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Holding up even fixes for severe bugs for 4-6 weeks ? Seriously, that i=
s
>> >unrealistic. Holding up the fix for the next SpeckHammer because it was=
 not
>> >ready before -rc4 ? I don't think so.
>>
>> For severe problems, the patch usually gets more than enough reviews and
>> testing, so I don't see a need to soak it in -next more than some
>> minimal amount of time to get bot coverage.
>>
>> However, these things show up only a few times per year. Most of the
>> fixes even in late -rc cycles are for older bugs that aren't too
>> critical. We can't base our decision on severe bugs that get exceptional
>> treatment anyways (see PTI getting pushed in -stable).
>>
>> >Even when not counting severe problems, you are adding lots of addition=
al work
>> >for those who do and want to rely on stable releases to merge in bug fi=
xes.
>> >Sure, I am at times annoyed having to deal with a regression in a stabl=
e
>> >release, but it very much beats digging through various mailing lists f=
or
>> >pending patches to fix CVEs, or for crashes seen in the field, just bec=
ause
>> >they are held hostage by some restrictive process. Even worse, I'd end =
up
>> >picking the regressions anyway because I can _not_ wait those 4-6 weeks
>> >plus the time it takes for the fixes to show up in a stable release.
>>
>> I think that for -stable we don't have a good idea how soon we want to
>> merge patches in. On one hand enterprise distro folks complain we're
>> jumping the gun, and on the other hand folks like yourself claim we're
>> too slow :)
>>
>
>You are misquoting me. I am saying that it would be a bad idea to hold up
>bug fixes after -rc4, which is quite different to saying that patches
>don't make it into stable releases fast enough. I am perfectly happy to
>wait a week or so for a patch to soak in _mainline_ before being applied
>to stable.

Most bug fixes that go in at that point are fixes for previous released
kernels, what's the harm in keeping them around for longer?

I'm not saying that it should be some arbitrary rule for everyone, but
just suggesting that maintainers should exercise more caution merging
untested commits that don't even fix a current regression.

w.r.t stable, as you just said, you're fine with a week or two, the
enterprise folks (as well as Ted, to some extend, in this thread)
suggest that this should be a month+

>I am absolutely _not_ happy with the number of patches making it into
>-stable releases recently. I am especially very concerned that the current
>flurry of patches queued for -stable will destabilize pretty much all
>stable releases, and pretty badly, for that matter. I am seriously
>contemplating not to integrate the next few stable releases into ChromeOS
>for that very reason. That would be a different discussion, though.

For AUTOSEL, I'd be happy to learn of issues you encounter and address
them in my process.

I've been submitting automatically selected patches for over a year now
and the track record for regressions is on par with patches that are
tagged for stable.=