From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566CA35C688 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 14:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.149 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785420762; cv=none; b=imu5bVYmqC1fyg+Y3/2ug2NWaPc4qO3jebfa1DFdWMM7J5U7T2cuglFGifpX3a9f3fpCGg3Up67E+mWBSO4kXvgaGGb5/o9Mz9i9pmVNyOKQBz5GUzF1qLzfOQY8svDp/vnsLOGEmMgYjNPkTvZ6LGb++rMj1SVRZ4L0N3zIUoM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785420762; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CLFKPhZ78YTibR+2pHMA1SavKhKEytCS+KNPwy8W8vM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Nsw+izGanMDihb6YV2EMoWozn4ESMEL+aahRo3iouHbsiH0PGd9PYglN/428T16dw0YAVo2khsqThMc+9AgKpQvLFclO2tasGrOKmPprhe9XhoSl4BNRmIJIwKoweCVZiSSfpp2/l0mF2AQac0nOlNpUfCv9E0p4n6F44CU0i+k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=GsCRJVl4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=QOwtdg8J; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.149 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="GsCRJVl4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="QOwtdg8J" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9ECEC0190; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:12:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1785420758; x= 1785507158; bh=LsZUjk3Zws2Mokh7LiosNXpm7BNlFvo0BCIJ1Hz336Q=; b=G sCRJVl4AWdd4PM9g5N2cQSrbqSqhGZqnG9Mi60Mxu9EhRY5x0ASSZ8TrvBstGx1j vGGOn1flknw/i/fsnhqca6Kp4YL6X/710xxu3B7Wczg5Igat57Y4jquiIZXrP4UT tDC0KwQNUA2f48rBLDuhpeL6Qbsmvxpf/mzOdBinhJblQzCsJTjwhDiKMqckBb5g 4ykxnHBVEvi/q9Sq2ZEgg0t2LV5TnVNriwAlOJWq09EQbL/blZJB4dsV/3ElN+LM qYNKqPWp8AsiYDeOQTfY7U7W56E4UGoH7t0X4ZEisF2ZZ8lHtjWJVU5izhfWc5Kf +4fMqPqDiTCrAmUtDQSeg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1785420758; x=1785507158; bh=LsZUjk3Zws2Mokh7LiosNXpm7BNlFvo0BCI J1Hz336Q=; b=QOwtdg8JbhFWeJ7DJxszwVTVDYtm80c+E2ZHZL4MXGEUJPpniVx COkDFcU4prlLHi1YSziPwpzhm9iLRQKc/6bqawuF1s5au4ILV+xVjtMaop2yhH8L 971NY6GJXUkuUI5WyYncq3lg5kcvwaLCkvhGAPSvagm/0ujGAz1e0jRf3lkCWwJT qxLoMLVDx0MSZe4JBR/Wowp59REASBJWcFIdkzLfCbKvQ38hWcci60e/RAGzJzLX lD1MgHS4DiWD34W4y46emc4idNDQVjVeUXCAMwd6cwSqVBnXaXshVdLuc/43yn+u TTQjKv+6SeDinqdGTYGhtRMj6Fj2m5bmxAQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTFS6u+kaEsjP+oI6qv8MFj9j8daDe8cFGmMIkrVj5DypEnR/7uI5X6GswZOhYxs5K Vpmg2etJAwglHAN0ZZ0rxuPwuDrRdF65PKvc8ow9pYAYkbxCDnWgiQO7NoLNg50kMPlpMq WyrKtga6whV/RZXJxRm58UVABTrF6OYm43xvVCitvHJkM4LDTrIHU4AGOO0kENafzxNgOK aZOuybs4O6LmplH99+ugNhOy29R/WI+prbx0o2RnHCF0Ti1YwuJropoKV9NrpdgvrgDq3S 27HT8vNB+7psdkYK5jWrOTjcFVRchYx4yhJPw/VQAPhhv3kk0WN6npdXaGedV7eAXZSjS+ KXtrVC48noD9UToKgrYyvi6N5B7lgasT7P/DXNHmxrMu4pJZgd0OvGEgwUJda17N/OumgH 1Bqt9u7ysOYMM1gWgtjl664HnuBtYvCgd8uJLF/3xKGleb2WxULt+kOXEFKuOzC4fASCpD +7sxMmz6DMDDwor9cixMpCVcZXOi1zY0seU7G6DXugaAMSCXA5cyG0IiOfVgbkyraBMJJx InC3GJh6cyOOLotuAcF0tg+M15j9lfXef8G0bGPwYZ9LCFg97W+zK8gCnwXVBQY99fEgxJ QweNBGOJ0FadFRG7zqqIffj25rhiprFJDuibHn2z9EcETS256ufVorZ1YOSQ X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 16:12:35 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Matthieu Baerts , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes Message-ID: References: <20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20260727152517.312895f3@kernel.org> <20260728160820.3860b3de@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260728160820.3860b3de@kernel.org> 2026-07-28, 16:08:20 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:56:31 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > If that's the case, good. But "quote this text at people until they > > comply" and "get an AI bot looking at all patches coming in" doesn't > > sound like that to me. > > IMO it's really very useful for reviewers to know if the author > triggered the issue. People usually add that information if they did. If it's not present, we should assume they didn't, and treat it as belonging to the "AI report/other-tool report/code analysis" bucket? > Also, for downstream backporters it's useful > to know in case of conflict whether to invest time in resolving > or the patch is mostly theoretical and waiting until next major is fine. For downstream backports, there can be a number of differences that make an issue either easier or harder/impossible to trigger. But sure, that's a useful baseline. If we could reword the statement to include something like (with a formulation/presentation similar to your patch, this is a short/ugly version): Fixes should describe if and how the issue was triggered/reproduced. This information should describe how likely it is to happen in real life [stuff about delays/fault injection/etc]. If this information is missing, we WILL assume the bug was found through code analysis (whether by human or tool/AI) and not actually triggered on a live system. [something about such patches being penalized in the reviews/queue? I don't know] my concern about having to add a bunch of uninformative text would go away. > I'm also guilty of not adding "impact to the user" info, but that > requires thinking and theorizing. The ask here is to purely state > the facts. So just something like "possible UAF/memleak/deadlock/some unwanted behavior" is what you expect here? That's totally reasonable. I thought you meant something more abstract. > FWIW the immediate trigger for me is the people who started sending > sloppy fixes to drivers that nobody uses. I ask them about the > discovery process and half of the time they don't even respond. Sure, I get that, you're drowning in pointless slop. An alternative could be an AI bot that looks at "fixes" and checks if they're likely to ever happen (or have a measurable impact. a tiny memleak when a device is initialized/module is loaded, even with great reproduction steps in the commit message, still falls in the "don't care" category IMO). My experiments with "find a way to trigger this code path" have been pretty good, so I guess if the bot comes up with "basically can't happen", that would be fairly reliable. -- Sabrina