On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > 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 see this problem, too, "-stable" is more experimental than Linus's > releases. > > I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process. > There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged make it to stable anyway. So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form. I think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed... - Eric
