On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 08:10 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:05:50AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:46:34PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >
> > > > As you said, the regression should be fixed "asap", not "immediately".
> > > > It should go through some sort of review and testing the maintainers are
> > > > happy with, but unfourtenately it doesn't happen now.
> > >
> > > Doesn't happen some of the time. It's not like this is a universal
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Especially for driver specific things there's at times no realistic
> > > prospect of getting useful independent review of fixes, the hardware
> > > isn't always widely available and if the fix isn't a pure software thing
> > > at some point you just have to trust the judgement of the vendor.
> >
> > And sometimes the Demon Murphy will cause a regression fix for user A,
> > to cause breakage for slightly different hardware belonging to user B. :-(
> >
>
> Believe me, I get my share of those. 7dac4a1726a9 ("ext4: add validity checks
> for bitmap block numbers") and its fix 22be37acce25 (" ext4: fix bitmap
> position validation") are pretty good examples. Yet, at the same time I had
> to deal with three additional CVEs in the ext4 code. Even though the initial
> fix for one of the four was buggy, I am glad that I got the other three
> through
> stable releases.
>
> As for -next, me and others stopped reporting bugs in it, because when we do
> we tend to get flamed for the "noise". Is anyone aware (or cares) that mips
> and nds32 images don't build ? Soaking clothes in an empty bathtub won't make
> them wet, and bugs in code which no one builds, much less tests or uses, won't
> be found.
>
> I can only repeat - what we need is more sophisticated testing, not a more
> restrictive process.
I agree, and people are working on this. But we can always use more!
thanks,
greg k-h
