Hi Andi, On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:13:57 +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 01:47:45PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 22:06:14 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > I wouldn't cc stable. For one thing, this patch doesn't fix a bug that > > actually bothers people. Error paths are rarely taken, and driver > > removal isn't that frequent either. Consequences are also rather > > harmless (one-time resource leak, race condition which is quite > > unlikely to trigger). > > we are having this same discussion in another thread: if a bug is > unlikely to happen, doesn't mean that there is no bug. A fix is a > fix and should be backported to stable kernels. No. Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html There is clearly a list of conditions for a commit to be eligible for stable kernel trees. It's not "every fix". > Sometimes bugs are reported some other times bugs are discovered > by reading the code (like in the other thread). In the latter > case bugs are just waiting for their time of glory. I'm not saying otherwise. But that's clearly one of the factor to decide whether a fix should go to stable. A bug which has been reported by a user who is affected by it is clearly a better candidate to backport. The other factor is how bad things are if the bug happens. I fully agree that a bug which is found by code review but would have dramatic consequences should also have its fix backported to stable kernel trees, even if it never happened before and is unlikely to happen in the future. My point is that the bugs being discussed here do not match any of these criteria. They have not been reported, they most likely never happened, they most likely never will, and if they would, consequences would be pretty benign. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
