From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 EF7DA5232 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:58:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708556312; cv=none; b=k12jM/HjLi30voPplQLZUTZKKrbY3RkcBw8/OjpEpNBFu29R2a9uOVXApO3B22tXSglGEnVWJi8naeXNtHutzejfywtCjBGIqM4KrVmmxpH18bp1RCIBphAU//Q+CcFnyJTzqPFcZztGnd4Hm4qZusDe5solO2TNcOHjmXLtdVc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708556312; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6lfxiQew9dVR172DMq4/DrW3GgE+LPP7fDBb9+ixYvA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sfaj57Sqs+T5nvIKVD1bqjKipTefVFFxz5MKkhDtifwQaxNoN66H3vV3PyMgSkqdfYMrscG/77PDtGskssVYFUuF9kmkZjeFS029xU7/oJmLCrjPe2bxY29got2rFfzNqIjHMEX/2uzJAFEGHARbSyhRWIGBGiU9f4VRI+42SRQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=BkbwImK5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BkbwImK5" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41FC7C433F1; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:58:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708556311; bh=6lfxiQew9dVR172DMq4/DrW3GgE+LPP7fDBb9+ixYvA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BkbwImK5cw+IYmeG09l+NAEjBgO1Mtcqe5ZtWqDsEm7yWZ1M31EN4p5vNZpS36ZCo ukxCE7u6POPfY6N5x9oqKPRiojE9d3buCl74QxdpLBU5eUgaWzNATVM/SRRbNAN6xO 7NKrqNHZkErev/2Ahs4hPU7xn6N9AtSu+hT5jnAf5cOJufECxonZ2MtFiivl/KVKvo QwSZmdVuP7vMrBMsdr40nhs7NG6JnDh1pCmTMTEeJvmuDKUvFh8gIguFP8quMsNr7Q kXMB2mwoiqTt6TKpkiMZlqdu54cwRycJHPT0YH061kjZGh/uvboQwuiLxiQfvAjbdU Rl+7xwOj8QRYw== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 17:58:30 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Greg KH , Oleksandr Natalenko , Kent Overstreet , Jiri Benc , stable@vger.kernel.org, Thorsten Leemhuis Subject: Re: fs/bcachefs/ Message-ID: References: <2024022103-municipal-filter-fb3f@gregkh> <4900587.31r3eYUQgx@natalenko.name> <2024022155-reformat-scorer-98ae@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 07:10:02PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >On 2/21/24 18:57, Greg KH wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:00:05PM +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: >>> On středa 21. února 2024 15:53:11 CET Greg KH wrote: >>> > Given the huge patch volume that the stable tree manages (30-40 changes >>> > accepted a day, 7 days a week), any one kernel subsystem that wishes to >>> > do something different only slows down everyone else. >>> >>> Lower down the volume then? Raise the bar for what gets backported? >>> Stable kernel releases got unnecessarily big [1] (Jiří is in Cc). >>> Those 40 changes a day cannot get a proper review. Each stable release >>> tries to mimic -rc except -rc is in consistent state while "stable" is >>> just a bunch of changes picked here and there. >> >> If you can point out any specific commits that we should not be taking, >> please let us know. >> >> Personally I think we are not taking enough, and are still missing real >> fixes. Overall, this is only a very small % of what goes into Linus's >> tree every day, so by that measure alone, we know we are missing things. > >What % of what goes into Linus's tree do you think fits within the rules >stated in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst ? I don't know but >"very small" would be my guess, so we should be fine as it is? > >Or are the rules actually still being observed? I doubt e.g. many of the >AUTOSEL backports fit them? Should we rename the file to >stable-rules-nonsense.rst? Hey, I have an exercise for you which came up last week during the whole CVE thing! Take a look at a random LTS kernel (I picked 5.10), in particular at the CVEs assigned to the kernel (in my case I relied on https://github.com/nluedtke/linux_kernel_cves/blob/master/data/5.10/5.10_security.txt). See how many of those actually have a stable@ tag to let us know that we need to pull that commit. (spoiler alert: in the 5.10 case it was ~33%) Do you have a better way for us to fish for the remaining 67%? Yeah, some have a Fixes tag, (it's not in stable-kernel-rules.rst!), and in the 5.10 case it would have helped with about half of the commits, but even then - what do we do with the remaining half? The argument you're making is in favor of just ignoring it until they get a CVE assigned (and even then, would we take them if it goes against stable-kernel-rules.rst?), but then we end up leaving users exposed for *years* as evidenced by some CVEs. So if we go with the current workflow, folks complain that we take too many patches. If we were to lean strictly to what stable-kernel-rules.rst says, we'd apparently miss most of the (security) issues affecting users. -- Thanks, Sasha