On 31/08/2023 14:10, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 31.08.23 13:47, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> On 31/08/2023 13:00, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> On 31.08.23 12:35, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>>> On 31/08/2023 11:26, Linux regression tracking #update (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>>> [TLDR: This mail in primarily relevant for Linux kernel regression >>>>> tracking. See link in footer if these mails annoy you.] >>>>> >>>>> On 19.06.23 02:24, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I notice a regression report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> #regzbot introduced: v6.3.5..v6.3.7 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217566 >>>>>> #regzbot title: switching TV channel causes VLC and firmware loading hang >>>>> >>>>> #regzbot fix: 7cfab4c9dc09ca3a9d57c187894055a22bdcd >>>>> #regzbot ignore-activity >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) >>>>> -- >>>>> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: >>>>> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr >>>>> That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you. >>>> >>>> >From what I can gather from the bugzilla report, whatever the issue was appears >>>> to be resolved or at least improved in later kernels. >>> >>> I'm pretty (but not 100%) sure the initial report in that ticket were >>> issues caused by a backport of a patch that was reverted later: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230609082238.3671398-1-mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Ah, you have a better memory than I have. That might well be the culprit. >> I didn't check for changes in the dvb core, I should have done that. >> >> That patch was introduced in 6.3.7 and reverted in 6.3.9. >> >> That doesn't quite match the "#regzbot introduced: v6.3.5..v6.3.7" report, >> though. I wonder if fedora backported that problematic patch to their v6.3.5 >> release? > > Nope, as it matches (I'd say). The reporter never bisected this and just > claimed that 6.3.5 was fine and 6.3.7 was broken (and 6.3.6 iirc was > never tested). In that case we tell regzbot that the culprit is > somewhere in that range (which is was[1]), as that's the important thing > to know in the context of the 6.3.y regression (that it also happened in > mainline is a different story). > > Is this too confusing? Would it be better to handle things differently > somehow? Ah, I interpreted "#regzbot introduced" as "this issue was seen in these kernels", instead of: "it was introduced in one of these kernels". With that it matches perfectly. Regards, Hans > > Ciao, Thorsten > > [1] $ git rev-list v6.3.5..v6.3.7 --oneline | grep "Fix use-after-free > on race condition at dvb_frontend" > 8994830135b3 media: dvb-core: Fix use-after-free on race condition at > dvb_frontend
