From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (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 D6A3C2F83 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13LIYTC5108273; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:46:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : references : from : message-id : date : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=J0W+PBsdSiaolqdhGGlppn6OPPDTOx2G4NLVDLDwgzk=; b=RXFtNyVUKa4thb9fC9sFzdfdwnN4FuVjZlXe+ZdwZAZSDg1paeBp22wCmt63eCgPt1uq xjYQJd3iw3OEOnIs1J7FHh/NL4OaatnR1qjd1BcI7iq13u7i3sxxT27b+EmZTzF3heFI POI9wNZrLLqxa0o9tSkPsafjfn8QVO6NsLQTAzx+k6GI3o4mf4usb9mpKS3aMsyMGtP1 5ddlcosB3Pw5sNy3qHl4SgwZXbENJLsn0ZE0ux76JjC3JJTen4v1RJyH31AzQ9dOcC60 XxTH0pnmnJTyj3Be7dhbkc6pca+9+UdbheRTXs0YeyONhEvYGtQtlEFHuLtKC4pxuLt2 vw== Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 382sa6rj2x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:46:24 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13LIgSHo016336; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:46:23 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37yqa8jett-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:46:23 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13LIkLVH66322688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:46:21 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF86952051; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:46:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc7455500831.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.22.74]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C078152050; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:46:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches To: James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev References: From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: <9805f151-bb7d-fd46-774b-5c9c3ec77f77@de.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:46:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 87MoCaMiysVcFO73xImNi6s2RZ_CccfE X-Proofpoint-GUID: 87MoCaMiysVcFO73xImNi6s2RZ_CccfE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-21_05:2021-04-21,2021-04-21 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=733 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104210128 On 21.04.21 20:35, James Bottomley wrote: > I've long been on record as not really being a fan of trivial patches > because they can cause merge issues with current patches and introduce > bugs, particularly in older drivers, that don't get detected for a long > while. However, the recent events with the University of Minnesota: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org/ > > Have elevated the risk factor around trivial patches claiming to fix > bugs to the point where it looks like there's no such thing as a truly > trivial patch and they all need reviewing. > > Our policy in SCSI for a long time has been no trivial patches accepted > to maintained drivers, and I think that would be a good start if > adopted kernel wide, but I think the next policy should be no trivial > bug fix without a pointer to the actual bug report or report from a > trusted static checker. This would likely mean we have to create a > list of trusted static checkers ... obviously 0day and coverity but > what else? I think we must also accept bugfixes that clearly explain how a bug can happen. You certainly do not want to wait for somebody to run into a problem if it is clear how such a bug can happen. Of course this requires a proper review.