diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst | 746 |
1 files changed, 746 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst b/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..abb741b1aeee --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst @@ -0,0 +1,746 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0) +.. See the bottom of this file for additional redistribution information. + +Handling regressions +++++++++++++++++++++ + +*We don't cause regressions* -- this document describes what this "first rule of +Linux kernel development" means in practice for developers. It complements +Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, which covers the topic from a +user's point of view; if you never read that text, go and at least skim over it +before continuing here. + +The important bits (aka "The TL;DR") +==================================== + +#. Ensure subscribers of the `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_ + (regressions@lists.linux.dev) quickly become aware of any new regression + report: + + * When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the + loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list + CCed. + + * Forward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list. + +#. Make the Linux kernel regression tracking bot "regzbot" track the issue (this + is optional, but recommended): + + * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot + introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions + list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot + when the issue started to happen:: + + #regzbot ^introduced 1f2e3d4c5b6a + + * When forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see + above), include a paragraph like the following:: + + #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1 + #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com> + #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789 + +#. When submitting fixes for regressions, add "Link:" tags to the patch + description pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as + mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and + :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`. + +#. Try to fix regressions quickly once the culprit has been identified; fixes + for most regressions should be merged within two weeks, but some need to be + resolved within two or three days. + + +All the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for developers +=================================================================== + + +The important basics in more detail +----------------------------------- + + +What to do when receiving regression reports +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Ensure the Linux kernel's regression tracker and others subscribers of the +`regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_ +(regressions@lists.linux.dev) become aware of any newly reported regression: + + * When you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring + it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed; + try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted + the list. + + * If a report submitted in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it + to the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter + already forwarded the report as instructed by + Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst. + +When doing either, consider making the Linux kernel regression tracking bot +"regzbot" immediately start tracking the issue: + + * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a "regzbot command" like + ``#regzbot introduced 1f2e3d4c5b6a``. If not, send a reply (with the + regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following::: + + #regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1 + + This tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen; + you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id + in case the reporter bisected the culprit. + + Note the caret (^) before the "introduced": it tells regzbot to treat the + parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression + you want to see tracked; that's important, as regzbot will later look out + for patches with "Link:" tags pointing to the report in the archives on + lore.kernel.org. + + * When forwarding a regressions reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph + with these regzbot commands:: + + #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a + #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com> + #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789 + + Regzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that + contain "Link:" tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket. + +What's important when fixing regressions +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +You don't need to do anything special when submitting fixes for regression, just +remember to do what Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, +:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`, and +Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst already explain in more detail: + + * Point to all places where the issue was reported using "Link:" tags:: + + Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/ + Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890 + + * Add a "Fixes:" tag to specify the commit causing the regression. + + * If the culprit was merged in an earlier development cycle, explicitly mark + the fix for backporting using the ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tag. + +All this is expected from you and important when it comes to regression, as +these tags are of great value for everyone (you included) that might be looking +into the issue weeks, months, or years later. These tags are also crucial for +tools and scripts used by other kernel developers or Linux distributions; one of +these tools is regzbot, which heavily relies on the "Link:" tags to associate +reports for regression with changes resolving them. + +Prioritize work on fixing regressions +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +You should fix any reported regression as quickly as possible, to provide +affected users with a solution in a timely manner and prevent more users from +running into the issue; nevertheless developers need to take enough time and +care to ensure regression fixes do not cause additional damage. + +In the end though, developers should give their best to prevent users from +running into situations where a regression leaves them only three options: "run +a kernel with a regression that seriously impacts usage", "continue running an +outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel version for more than two weeks +after a regression's culprit was identified", and "downgrade to a still +supported kernel series that lack required features". + +How to realize this depends a lot on the situation. Here are a few rules of +thumb for you, in order or importance: + + * Prioritize work on handling regression reports and fixing regression over all + other Linux kernel work, unless the latter concerns acute security issues or + bugs causing data loss or damage. + + * Always consider reverting the culprit commits and reapplying them later + together with necessary fixes, as this might be the least dangerous and + quickest way to fix a regression. + + * Developers should handle regressions in all supported kernel series, but are + free to delegate the work to the stable team, if the issue probably at no + point in time occurred with mainline. + + * Try to resolve any regressions introduced in the current development before + its end. If you fear a fix might be too risky to apply only days before a new + mainline release, let Linus decide: submit the fix separately to him as soon + as possible with the explanation of the situation. He then can make a call + and postpone the release if necessary, for example if multiple such changes + show up in his inbox. + + * Address regressions in stable, longterm, or proper mainline releases with + more urgency than regressions in mainline pre-releases. That changes after + the release of the fifth pre-release, aka "-rc5": mainline then becomes as + important, to ensure all the improvements and fixes are ideally tested + together for at least one week before Linus releases a new mainline version. + + * Fix regressions within two or three days, if they are critical for some + reason -- for example, if the issue is likely to affect many users of the + kernel series in question on all or certain architectures. Note, this + includes mainline, as issues like compile errors otherwise might prevent many + testers or continuous integration systems from testing the series. + + * Aim to fix regressions within one week after the culprit was identified, if + the issue was introduced in either: + + * a recent stable/longterm release + + * the development cycle of the latest proper mainline release + + In the latter case (say Linux v5.14), try to address regressions even + quicker, if the stable series for the predecessor (v5.13) will be abandoned + soon or already was stamped "End-of-Life" (EOL) -- this usually happens about + three to four weeks after a new mainline release. + + * Try to fix all other regressions within two weeks after the culprit was + found. Two or three additional weeks are acceptable for performance + regressions and other issues which are annoying, but don't prevent anyone + from running Linux (unless it's an issue in the current development cycle, + as those should ideally be addressed before the release). A few weeks in + total are acceptable if a regression can only be fixed with a risky change + and at the same time is affecting only a few users; as much time is + also okay if the regression is already present in the second newest longterm + kernel series. + +Note: The aforementioned time frames for resolving regressions are meant to +include getting the fix tested, reviewed, and merged into mainline, ideally with +the fix being in linux-next at least briefly. This leads to delays you need to +account for. + +Subsystem maintainers are expected to assist in reaching those periods by doing +timely reviews and quick handling of accepted patches. They thus might have to +send git-pull requests earlier or more often than usual; depending on the fix, +it might even be acceptable to skip testing in linux-next. Especially fixes for +regressions in stable and longterm kernels need to be handled quickly, as fixes +need to be merged in mainline before they can be backported to older series. + + +More aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of +---------------------------------------------------------------- + + +How to deal with changes where a risk of regression is known +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Evaluate how big the risk of regressions is, for example by performing a code +search in Linux distributions and Git forges. Also consider asking other +developers or projects likely to be affected to evaluate or even test the +proposed change; if problems surface, maybe some solution acceptable for all +can be found. + +If the risk of regressions in the end seems to be relatively small, go ahead +with the change, but let all involved parties know about the risk. Hence, make +sure your patch description makes this aspect obvious. Once the change is +merged, tell the Linux kernel's regression tracker and the regressions mailing +list about the risk, so everyone has the change on the radar in case reports +trickle in. Depending on the risk, you also might want to ask the subsystem +maintainer to mention the issue in his mainline pull request. + +What else is there to known about regressions? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Check out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot +of other aspects you want might want to be aware of: + + * the purpose of the "no regressions rule" + + * what issues actually qualify as regression + + * who's in charge for finding the root cause of a regression + + * how to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a + security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one + +Whom to ask for advice when it comes to regressions +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while +CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the +issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list. + + +More about regression tracking and regzbot +------------------------------------------ + + +Why the Linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Rules like "no regressions" need someone to ensure they are followed, otherwise +they are broken either accidentally or on purpose. History has shown this to be +true for the Linux kernel as well. That's why Thorsten Leemhuis volunteered to +keep an eye on things as the Linux kernel's regression tracker, who's +occasionally helped by other people. Neither of them are paid to do this, +that's why regression tracking is done on a best effort basis. + +Earlier attempts to manually track regressions have shown it's an exhausting and +frustrating work, which is why they were abandoned after a while. To prevent +this from happening again, Thorsten developed regzbot to facilitate the work, +with the long term goal to automate regression tracking as much as possible for +everyone involved. + +How does regression tracking work with regzbot? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +The bot watches for replies to reports of tracked regressions. Additionally, +it's looking out for posted or committed patches referencing such reports +with "Link:" tags; replies to such patch postings are tracked as well. +Combined this data provides good insights into the current state of the fixing +process. + +Regzbot tries to do its job with as little overhead as possible for both +reporters and developers. In fact, only reporters are burdened with an extra +duty: they need to tell regzbot about the regression report using the ``#regzbot +introduced`` command outlined above; if they don't do that, someone else can +take care of that using ``#regzbot ^introduced``. + +For developers there normally is no extra work involved, they just need to make +sure to do something that was expected long before regzbot came to light: add +"Link:" tags to the patch description pointing to all reports about the issue +fixed. + +Do I have to use regzbot? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +It's in the interest of everyone if you do, as kernel maintainers like Linus +Torvalds partly rely on regzbot's tracking in their work -- for example when +deciding to release a new version or extend the development phase. For this they +need to be aware of all unfixed regression; to do that, Linus is known to look +into the weekly reports sent by regzbot. + +Do I have to tell regzbot about every regression I stumble upon? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Ideally yes: we are all humans and easily forget problems when something more +important unexpectedly comes up -- for example a bigger problem in the Linux +kernel or something in real life that's keeping us away from keyboards for a +while. Hence, it's best to tell regzbot about every regression, except when you +immediately write a fix and commit it to a tree regularly merged to the affected +kernel series. + +How to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Check `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_ +for the latest info; alternatively, `search for the latest regression report +<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot>`_, +which regzbot normally sends out once a week on Sunday evening (UTC), which is a +few hours before Linus usually publishes new (pre-)releases. + +What places is regzbot monitoring? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Regzbot is watching the most important Linux mailing lists as well as the git +repositories of linux-next, mainline, and stable/longterm. + +What kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +The bot is meant to track regressions, hence please don't involve regzbot for +regular issues. But it's okay for the Linux kernel's regression tracker if you +use regzbot to track severe issues, like reports about hangs, corrupted data, +or internal errors (Panic, Oops, BUG(), warning, ...). + +Can I add regressions found by CI systems to regzbot's tracking? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Feel free to do so, if the particular regression likely has impact on practical +use cases and thus might be noticed by users; hence, please don't involve +regzbot for theoretical regressions unlikely to show themselves in real world +usage. + +How to interact with regzbot? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +By using a 'regzbot command' in a direct or indirect reply to the mail with the +regression report. These commands need to be in their own paragraph (IOW: they +need to be separated from the rest of the mail using blank lines). + +One such command is ``#regzbot introduced <version or commit>``, which makes +regzbot consider your mail as a regressions report added to the tracking, as +already described above; ``#regzbot ^introduced <version or commit>`` is another +such command, which makes regzbot consider the parent mail as a report for a +regression which it starts to track. + +Once one of those two commands has been utilized, other regzbot commands can be +used in direct or indirect replies to the report. You can write them below one +of the `introduced` commands or in replies to the mail that used one of them +or itself is a reply to that mail: + + * Set or update the title:: + + #regzbot title: foo + + * Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of + the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing + the regression:: + + #regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/ + + Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot + will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing + process. + + * Point to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post + or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different + topic:: + + #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789 + + * Mark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already + landed:: + + #regzbot fixed-by: 1f2e3d4c5d + + * Mark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot:: + + #regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/ + + * Mark a regression as invalid:: + + #regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed + +Is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +More detailed and up-to-date information about the Linux +kernel's regression tracking bot can be found on its +`project page <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot>`_, which among others +contains a `getting started guide <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>`_ +and `reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_ +which both cover more details than the above section. + +Quotes from Linus about regression +---------------------------------- + +Find below a few real life examples of how Linus Torvalds expects regressions to +be handled: + + * From `2017-10-26 (1/2) + <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION. + + It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup". + + Really. NOT OK. + + [...] + + The first rule is: + + - we don't cause regressions + + and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to + them and fix them, instead of blaming user space. + + The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for + three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor + requests until the people involved understand how kernel development + is done. + + * From `2017-10-26 (2/2) + <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel + and simply not have to worry about it. + + I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also + update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to + work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you. + + There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they + generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened, + that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to + avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more + after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any + more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things, + and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe + there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a + flag day for very core and fundamental reasons. + + And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments. + + Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some + feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that + are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in + the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically + an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that + the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not + see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different, + but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive + (or no longer relevant) information. + + But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or + reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix + your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the + problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we + have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new + user space". + + And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not + understand and honor this very simple rule. + + This rule is also not going to change. + + And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm + proud of it. + + I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to + break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on + undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to + do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better + way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early + alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed + up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two + decades. + + We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix + internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's + about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also + obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody + can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it + up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too. + + And we simply do not break user space. + + * From `2020-05-21 + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of + documented behavior, or where the code lives. + + The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow". + + Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters. + + No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was + undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work + simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant. + + Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things + like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes + that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't + really have other options that would allow things to continue. + + And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something + broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that + doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a + handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work + around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict. + + But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the + code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is + irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it, + that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying + "please clean this up". + + The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API + stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make + any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices. + + Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about + API's, and not about the phase of the moon. + + It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work". + + * From `2017-11-05 + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change". + That would mean that we could never make any changes at all. + + For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the + time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest + directory. + + So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a + regression per se. + + The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user + workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do + X, now I can't". + + * From `2018-08-03 + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE. + + We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong. + + And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you + are wrong. + + Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage. + + The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade + the kernel and never have to worry about it. + + > Kernel had a bug which has been fixed + + That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial. + + Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER. + + Why? + + Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break + something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix + tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that + we can break something is simply NOT TRUE. + + So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen, + they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we + break users". + + Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER. + + How hard is that to understand? + + Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing + the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it + worked for him/her. + + Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account, + maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't + matter. It worked for the user. + + Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason + for breakage you can imagine. + + It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it, + but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement + is? + + And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless + piece of code that you might as well throw away. + + Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we + don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN + ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a + MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't + even care about. + + And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any + other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days + and dependencies are horribly bad. + + And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not + upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop + the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same + time. + + So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel + without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem. + + * From `2021-06-05 + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + THERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS. + + Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not + a success case of security. It's a failure case. + + Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*. + + * From `2011-05-06 (1/3) + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + Binary compatibility is more important. + + And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just + parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to + /proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression. + + And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or + similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things". + + I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel + developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter + NOT AT ALL. + + If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the + interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory + simply doesn't matter. + + You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility + issues that way. There aren't that many of them. + + From `2011-05-06 (2/3) + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + it's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being + used by powertop. + + From `2011-05-06 (3/3) + <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + We have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break. + + * From `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + > Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a + > standard distro userspace. + + Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons + of people run Debian unstable + + * From `2019-09-15 + <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_:: + + One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring + the version change itself) done just before the release, and while + it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive. + + What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't + actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do, + and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much + improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible + regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area. + + The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that + revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive + example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no + regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any + API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing + another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a + user. So it got reverted. + + The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_, + not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept. + The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to + trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just + happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the + previously benign behavior of that old issue. + + And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO + patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a + bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened + to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have + to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different + patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might + be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed + the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be + re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have + consensus about the issue it exposed. + + Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the + kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code + "should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether + something breaks existing users' workflow. + + Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing. Since + it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps + worth just bringing it up every once in a while + +.. + end-of-content +.. + This text is available under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0, as stated at the top + of the file. If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only, + please use "The Linux kernel developers" for author attribution and link + this as source: + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst +.. + Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources + is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed + (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from + files which use a more restrictive license. |