1 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)
2 .. See the bottom of this file for additional redistribution information.
7 *We don't cause regressions* -- this document describes what this "first rule of
8 Linux kernel development" means in practice for developers. It complements
9 Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, which covers the topic from a
10 user's point of view; if you never read that text, go and at least skim over it
11 before continuing here.
13 The important bits (aka "The TL;DR")
14 ====================================
16 #. Ensure subscribers of the `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
17 (regressions@lists.linux.dev) quickly become aware of any new regression
20 * When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
21 loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
24 * Forward or bounce any reports submitted in bug trackers to the list.
26 #. Make the Linux kernel regression tracking bot "regzbot" track the issue (this
27 is optional, but recommended):
29 * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot
30 introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
31 list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
32 when the issue started to happen::
34 #regzbot ^introduced 1f2e3d4c5b6a
36 * When forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
37 above), include a paragraph like the following::
39 #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
40 #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
41 #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
43 #. When submitting fixes for regressions, add "Link:" tags to the patch
44 description pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as
45 mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
46 :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`.
48 #. Try to fix regressions quickly once the culprit has been identified; fixes
49 for most regressions should be merged within two weeks, but some need to be
50 resolved within two or three days.
53 All the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for developers
54 ===================================================================
57 The important basics in more detail
58 -----------------------------------
61 What to do when receiving regression reports
62 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
64 Ensure the Linux kernel's regression tracker and others subscribers of the
65 `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
66 (regressions@lists.linux.dev) become aware of any newly reported regression:
68 * When you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring
69 it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed;
70 try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted
73 * If a report submitted in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it
74 to the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter
75 already forwarded the report as instructed by
76 Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.
78 When doing either, consider making the Linux kernel regression tracking bot
79 "regzbot" immediately start tracking the issue:
81 * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a "regzbot command" like
82 ``#regzbot introduced 1f2e3d4c5b6a``. If not, send a reply (with the
83 regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following:::
85 #regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
87 This tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen;
88 you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
89 in case the reporter bisected the culprit.
91 Note the caret (^) before the "introduced": it tells regzbot to treat the
92 parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression
93 you want to see tracked; that's important, as regzbot will later look out
94 for patches with "Link:" tags pointing to the report in the archives on
97 * When forwarding a regressions reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph
98 with these regzbot commands::
100 #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
101 #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
102 #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
104 Regzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that
105 contain "Link:" tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket.
107 What's important when fixing regressions
108 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
110 You don't need to do anything special when submitting fixes for regression, just
111 remember to do what Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
112 :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`, and
113 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst already explain in more detail:
115 * Point to all places where the issue was reported using "Link:" tags::
117 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
118 Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890
120 * Add a "Fixes:" tag to specify the commit causing the regression.
122 * If the culprit was merged in an earlier development cycle, explicitly mark
123 the fix for backporting using the ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tag.
125 All this is expected from you and important when it comes to regression, as
126 these tags are of great value for everyone (you included) that might be looking
127 into the issue weeks, months, or years later. These tags are also crucial for
128 tools and scripts used by other kernel developers or Linux distributions; one of
129 these tools is regzbot, which heavily relies on the "Link:" tags to associate
130 reports for regression with changes resolving them.
132 Expectations and best practices for fixing regressions
133 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
135 As a Linux kernel developer, you are expected to give your best to prevent
136 situations where a regression caused by a recent change of yours leaves users
139 * Run a kernel with a regression that impacts usage.
141 * Switch to an older or newer kernel series.
143 * Continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel for more
144 than three weeks after the regression's culprit was identified. Ideally it
145 should be less than two. And it ought to be just a few days, if the issue is
146 severe or affects many users -- either in general or in prevalent
149 How to realize that in practice depends on various factors. Use the following
150 rules of thumb as a guide.
154 * Prioritize work on regressions over all other Linux kernel work, unless the
155 latter concerns a severe issue (e.g. acute security vulnerability, data loss,
156 bricked hardware, ...).
158 * Expedite fixing mainline regressions that recently made it into a proper
159 mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via backport).
161 * Do not consider regressions from the current cycle as something that can wait
162 till the end of the cycle, as the issue might discourage or prevent users and
163 CI systems from testing mainline now or generally.
165 * Work with the required care to avoid additional or bigger damage, even if
166 resolving an issue then might take longer than outlined below.
168 On timing once the culprit of a regression is known:
170 * Aim to mainline a fix within two or three days, if the issue is severe or
171 bothering many users -- either in general or in prevalent conditions like a
172 particular hardware environment, distribution, or stable/longterm series.
174 * Aim to mainline a fix by Sunday after the next, if the culprit made it
175 into a recent mainline, stable, or longterm release (either directly or via
176 backport); if the culprit became known early during a week and is simple to
177 resolve, try to mainline the fix within the same week.
179 * For other regressions, aim to mainline fixes before the hindmost Sunday
180 within the next three weeks. One or two Sundays later are acceptable, if the
181 regression is something people can live with easily for a while -- like a
182 mild performance regression.
184 * It's strongly discouraged to delay mainlining regression fixes till the next
185 merge window, except when the fix is extraordinarily risky or when the
186 culprit was mainlined more than a year ago.
190 * Always consider reverting the culprit, as it's often the quickest and least
191 dangerous way to fix a regression. Don't worry about mainlining a fixed
192 variant later: that should be straight-forward, as most of the code went
193 through review once already.
195 * Try to resolve any regressions introduced in mainline during the past
196 twelve months before the current development cycle ends: Linus wants such
197 regressions to be handled like those from the current cycle, unless fixing
200 * Consider CCing Linus on discussions or patch review, if a regression seems
201 tangly. Do the same in precarious or urgent cases -- especially if the
202 subsystem maintainer might be unavailable. Also CC the stable team, when you
203 know such a regression made it into a mainline, stable, or longterm release.
205 * For urgent regressions, consider asking Linus to pick up the fix straight
206 from the mailing list: he is totally fine with that for uncontroversial
207 fixes. Ideally though such requests should happen in accordance with the
208 subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.
210 * In case you are unsure if a fix is worth the risk applying just days before
211 a new mainline release, send Linus a mail with the usual lists and people in
212 CC; in it, summarize the situation while asking him to consider picking up
213 the fix straight from the list. He then himself can make the call and when
214 needed even postpone the release. Such requests again should ideally happen
215 in accordance with the subsystem maintainers or come directly from them.
217 Regarding stable and longterm kernels:
219 * You are free to leave regressions to the stable team, if they at no point in
220 time occurred with mainline or were fixed there already.
222 * If a regression made it into a proper mainline release during the past
223 twelve months, ensure to tag the fix with "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org", as a
224 "Fixes:" tag alone does not guarantee a backport. Please add the same tag,
225 in case you know the culprit was backported to stable or longterm kernels.
227 * When receiving reports about regressions in recent stable or longterm kernel
228 series, please evaluate at least briefly if the issue might happen in current
229 mainline as well -- and if that seems likely, take hold of the report. If in
230 doubt, ask the reporter to check mainline.
232 * Whenever you want to swiftly resolve a regression that recently also made it
233 into a proper mainline, stable, or longterm release, fix it quickly in
234 mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track the fix (see
235 above). That's because the stable team normally does neither revert nor fix
236 any changes that cause the same problems in mainline.
238 * In case of urgent regression fixes you might want to ensure prompt
239 backporting by dropping the stable team a note once the fix was mainlined;
240 this is especially advisable during merge windows and shortly thereafter, as
241 the fix otherwise might land at the end of a huge patch queue.
245 * Developers, when trying to reach the time periods mentioned above, remember
246 to account for the time it takes to get fixes tested, reviewed, and merged by
247 Linus, ideally with them being in linux-next at least briefly. Hence, if a
248 fix is urgent, make it obvious to ensure others handle it appropriately.
250 * Reviewers, you are kindly asked to assist developers in reaching the time
251 periods mentioned above by reviewing regression fixes in a timely manner.
253 * Subsystem maintainers, you likewise are encouraged to expedite the handling
254 of regression fixes. Thus evaluate if skipping linux-next is an option for
255 the particular fix. Also consider sending git pull requests more often than
256 usual when needed. And try to avoid holding onto regression fixes over
257 weekends -- especially when the fix is marked for backporting.
260 More aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of
261 ----------------------------------------------------------------
264 How to deal with changes where a risk of regression is known
265 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
267 Evaluate how big the risk of regressions is, for example by performing a code
268 search in Linux distributions and Git forges. Also consider asking other
269 developers or projects likely to be affected to evaluate or even test the
270 proposed change; if problems surface, maybe some solution acceptable for all
273 If the risk of regressions in the end seems to be relatively small, go ahead
274 with the change, but let all involved parties know about the risk. Hence, make
275 sure your patch description makes this aspect obvious. Once the change is
276 merged, tell the Linux kernel's regression tracker and the regressions mailing
277 list about the risk, so everyone has the change on the radar in case reports
278 trickle in. Depending on the risk, you also might want to ask the subsystem
279 maintainer to mention the issue in his mainline pull request.
281 What else is there to known about regressions?
282 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
284 Check out Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst, it covers a lot
285 of other aspects you want might want to be aware of:
287 * the purpose of the "no regressions rule"
289 * what issues actually qualify as regression
291 * who's in charge for finding the root cause of a regression
293 * how to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a
294 security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one
296 Whom to ask for advice when it comes to regressions
297 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
299 Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while
300 CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the
301 issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.
304 More about regression tracking and regzbot
305 ------------------------------------------
308 Why the Linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used?
309 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
311 Rules like "no regressions" need someone to ensure they are followed, otherwise
312 they are broken either accidentally or on purpose. History has shown this to be
313 true for the Linux kernel as well. That's why Thorsten Leemhuis volunteered to
314 keep an eye on things as the Linux kernel's regression tracker, who's
315 occasionally helped by other people. Neither of them are paid to do this,
316 that's why regression tracking is done on a best effort basis.
318 Earlier attempts to manually track regressions have shown it's an exhausting and
319 frustrating work, which is why they were abandoned after a while. To prevent
320 this from happening again, Thorsten developed regzbot to facilitate the work,
321 with the long term goal to automate regression tracking as much as possible for
324 How does regression tracking work with regzbot?
325 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
327 The bot watches for replies to reports of tracked regressions. Additionally,
328 it's looking out for posted or committed patches referencing such reports
329 with "Link:" tags; replies to such patch postings are tracked as well.
330 Combined this data provides good insights into the current state of the fixing
333 Regzbot tries to do its job with as little overhead as possible for both
334 reporters and developers. In fact, only reporters are burdened with an extra
335 duty: they need to tell regzbot about the regression report using the ``#regzbot
336 introduced`` command outlined above; if they don't do that, someone else can
337 take care of that using ``#regzbot ^introduced``.
339 For developers there normally is no extra work involved, they just need to make
340 sure to do something that was expected long before regzbot came to light: add
341 "Link:" tags to the patch description pointing to all reports about the issue
344 Do I have to use regzbot?
345 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
347 It's in the interest of everyone if you do, as kernel maintainers like Linus
348 Torvalds partly rely on regzbot's tracking in their work -- for example when
349 deciding to release a new version or extend the development phase. For this they
350 need to be aware of all unfixed regression; to do that, Linus is known to look
351 into the weekly reports sent by regzbot.
353 Do I have to tell regzbot about every regression I stumble upon?
354 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
356 Ideally yes: we are all humans and easily forget problems when something more
357 important unexpectedly comes up -- for example a bigger problem in the Linux
358 kernel or something in real life that's keeping us away from keyboards for a
359 while. Hence, it's best to tell regzbot about every regression, except when you
360 immediately write a fix and commit it to a tree regularly merged to the affected
363 How to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently?
364 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
366 Check `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_
367 for the latest info; alternatively, `search for the latest regression report
368 <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot>`_,
369 which regzbot normally sends out once a week on Sunday evening (UTC), which is a
370 few hours before Linus usually publishes new (pre-)releases.
372 What places is regzbot monitoring?
373 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
375 Regzbot is watching the most important Linux mailing lists as well as the git
376 repositories of linux-next, mainline, and stable/longterm.
378 What kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot?
379 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
381 The bot is meant to track regressions, hence please don't involve regzbot for
382 regular issues. But it's okay for the Linux kernel's regression tracker if you
383 use regzbot to track severe issues, like reports about hangs, corrupted data,
384 or internal errors (Panic, Oops, BUG(), warning, ...).
386 Can I add regressions found by CI systems to regzbot's tracking?
387 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
389 Feel free to do so, if the particular regression likely has impact on practical
390 use cases and thus might be noticed by users; hence, please don't involve
391 regzbot for theoretical regressions unlikely to show themselves in real world
394 How to interact with regzbot?
395 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
397 By using a 'regzbot command' in a direct or indirect reply to the mail with the
398 regression report. These commands need to be in their own paragraph (IOW: they
399 need to be separated from the rest of the mail using blank lines).
401 One such command is ``#regzbot introduced <version or commit>``, which makes
402 regzbot consider your mail as a regressions report added to the tracking, as
403 already described above; ``#regzbot ^introduced <version or commit>`` is another
404 such command, which makes regzbot consider the parent mail as a report for a
405 regression which it starts to track.
407 Once one of those two commands has been utilized, other regzbot commands can be
408 used in direct or indirect replies to the report. You can write them below one
409 of the `introduced` commands or in replies to the mail that used one of them
410 or itself is a reply to that mail:
412 * Set or update the title::
416 * Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of
417 the issue or a fix are discussed -- for example the posting of a patch fixing
420 #regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
422 Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
423 will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing
426 * Point to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post
427 or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different
430 #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789
432 * Mark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already
435 #regzbot fixed-by: 1f2e3d4c5d
437 * Mark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot::
439 #regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
441 * Mark a regression as invalid::
443 #regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed
445 Is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands?
446 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
448 More detailed and up-to-date information about the Linux
449 kernel's regression tracking bot can be found on its
450 `project page <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot>`_, which among others
451 contains a `getting started guide <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>`_
452 and `reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_
453 which both cover more details than the above section.
455 Quotes from Linus about regression
456 ----------------------------------
458 Find below a few real life examples of how Linus Torvalds expects regressions to
461 * From `2017-10-26 (1/2)
462 <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
464 If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION.
466 It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup".
474 - we don't cause regressions
476 and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
477 them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.
479 The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for
480 three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
481 requests until the people involved understand how kernel development
484 * From `2017-10-26 (2/2)
485 <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
487 People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel
488 and simply not have to worry about it.
490 I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also
491 update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to
492 work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you.
494 There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
495 generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
496 that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
497 avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more
498 after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
499 more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things,
500 and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
501 there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a
502 flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.
504 And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.
506 Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
507 feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that
508 are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in
509 the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically
510 an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that
511 the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not
512 see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
513 but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive
514 (or no longer relevant) information.
516 But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or
517 reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
518 your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the
519 problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we
520 have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new
523 And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
524 understand and honor this very simple rule.
526 This rule is also not going to change.
528 And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
531 I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
532 break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on
533 undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to
534 do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
535 way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
536 alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed
537 up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two
540 We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix
541 internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's
542 about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
543 obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
544 can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
545 up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too.
547 And we simply do not break user space.
550 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
552 The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of
553 documented behavior, or where the code lives.
555 The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow".
557 Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters.
559 No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was
560 undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work
561 simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant.
563 Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
564 like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes
565 that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't
566 really have other options that would allow things to continue.
568 And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
569 broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that
570 doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a
571 handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
572 around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict.
574 But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the
575 code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
576 irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it,
577 that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying
578 "please clean this up".
580 The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API
581 stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make
582 any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.
584 Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about
585 API's, and not about the phase of the moon.
587 It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work".
590 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
592 And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
593 That would mean that we could never make any changes at all.
595 For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the
596 time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest
599 So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
602 The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user
603 workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do
607 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
609 YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE.
611 We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.
613 And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
616 Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.
618 The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade
619 the kernel and never have to worry about it.
621 > Kernel had a bug which has been fixed
623 That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial.
625 Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER.
629 Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break
630 something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix
631 tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that
632 we can break something is simply NOT TRUE.
634 So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen,
635 they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
638 Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER.
640 How hard is that to understand?
642 Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing
643 the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
646 Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account,
647 maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
648 matter. It worked for the user.
650 Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason
651 for breakage you can imagine.
653 It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
654 but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement
657 And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
658 piece of code that you might as well throw away.
660 Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we
661 don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN
662 ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a
663 MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't
666 And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
667 other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
668 and dependencies are horribly bad.
670 And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
671 upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
672 the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
675 So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel
676 without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem.
679 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
681 THERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS.
683 Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not
684 a success case of security. It's a failure case.
686 Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*.
688 * From `2011-05-06 (1/3)
689 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
691 Binary compatibility is more important.
693 And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
694 parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
695 /proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression.
697 And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
698 similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things".
700 I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel
701 developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter
704 If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the
705 interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory
706 simply doesn't matter.
708 You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
709 issues that way. There aren't that many of them.
711 From `2011-05-06 (2/3)
712 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
714 it's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being
717 From `2011-05-06 (3/3)
718 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
720 We have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.
722 * From `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
724 > Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
725 > standard distro userspace.
727 Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons
728 of people run Debian unstable
731 <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
733 One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
734 the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
735 it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive.
737 What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't
738 actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do,
739 and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
740 improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
741 regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area.
743 The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that
744 revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive
745 example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
746 regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any
747 API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
748 another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
749 user. So it got reverted.
751 The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
752 not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept.
753 The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
754 trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just
755 happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
756 previously benign behavior of that old issue.
758 And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
759 patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a
760 bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened
761 to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have
762 to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different
763 patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
764 be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed
765 the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be
766 re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
767 consensus about the issue it exposed.
769 Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
770 kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
771 "should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether
772 something breaks existing users' workflow.
774 Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing. Since
775 it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps
776 worth just bringing it up every once in a while
781 This text is available under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0, as stated at the top
782 of the file. If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only,
783 please use "The Linux kernel developers" for author attribution and link
785 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
787 Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
788 is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
789 (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
790 files which use a more restrictive license.