Re: Possible build time regression affecting stable kernels

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 02:39:00PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 11:51 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 10:56:24AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 9:20 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:13:21AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > Yes. I'm reporting this here because I'm more concerned with -stable kernels since
> > > > > they're more likely to be running on older user-space.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, we are bug-compatible!  :)
> > >
> > > While I really don't want to go back into the old arguments about what
> > > does, and does not, get backported to -stable, I do want to ask if
> > > there is some way to signal to the -stable maintainers that a patch
> > > should not be backported?  Anything coming from the LSM, SELinux, or
> > > audit trees that I believe should be backported is explicitly marked
> > > with a stable@vger CC, as documented in stable-kernel-rules.rst,
> > > however it is generally my experience that patches with a 'Fixes:' tag
> > > are generally pulled into the -stable releases as well.
> >
> > Really?
> 
> Yes, really.
> 
> > Right now we HAVE to pick up the Fixes: tagged commits in those
> > subsystems as you are missing lots of real fixes.
> 
> This starts to bring us back to the old argument about what is
> appropriate for -stable, but I've been sticking as close as possible
> to what is documented in stable-kernel-rules.rst which (ignoring
> things like HW enablement) advises that only patches which fix build
> issues or "serious issues" should be considered for -stable.  I
> consider every bug fix that goes into the LSM, SELinux, and audit
> trees to see if it meets those criteria, if it does I mark it with a
> -stable tag, if not I leave the -stable tag and ensure it carries a
> 'Fixes:' tag if it makes sense and an appropriate root-cause commit is
> identified.
> 
> We definitely have different opinions on where the -stable bug fix
> threshold lies.  I am of the opinion that every -stable backport
> carries risk, and I consider that when deciding if a commit should be
> marked for -stable.  I do not believe that every bug fix, or every
> commit with a 'Fixes:' tag, should be backported to -stable.

Ok, I'll not argue here, but it feels like there is a lack of changes
for some of these portions of the kernel that end up in stable kernels.
I'll trust you on this.

So, can I get a directory list or file list of what we should be
ignoring for the AUTOSEL and "Fixes: only" tools to be ignoring?

thanks,

greg k-h