On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
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 see this problem, too, "-stable" is more experimental than Linus's releases.
I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process.
There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged make it to stable anyway. So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form. I think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed...
- Eric