On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 03:39:14PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > 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 would love to have a mechanism that tells me with 100% confidence if a > given commit fixes a bug or not, could you provide me with one? Just because you can't be 100% certain whether a commit is a fix doesn't mean you should be rushing to backport random commits that have no indications they are fixing anything. > w.r.t timelines, this is something that was discussed on the mailing > list a few years ago where we decided that giving AUTOSEL commits 7 days > of soaking time is sufficient, if anything changed we can have this > discussion again. Nothing has changed, but that doesn't mean that your process is actually working. 7 days might be appropriate for something that looks like a security fix, but not for a random commit with no indications it is fixing anything. BTW, based on that example it's not even 7 days between AUTOSEL and patch applied, but actually 7 days from AUTOSEL to *release*. So e.g. if someone takes just a 1 week vacation, in that time a commit they would have NAK'ed can be AUTOSEL'ed and pushed out across all LTS kernels... > Note, however, that it's not enough to keep pointing at a tiny set and > using it to suggest that the entire process is broken. How many AUTOSEL > commits introduced a regression? How many -stable tagged ones did? How > many bugs did AUTOSEL commits fix? So basically you don't accept feedback from individual people, as individual people don't have enough data? - Eric
