On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 11:27 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> > wrote: [...] > > Given this is the second time I hit a bug with this, perhaps > > introduce an EXPERIMENTAL CONFIG option, so that random users can > > simply disable it if an issue occurs? Without the need of patching > > random userspace and changing random kernel headers? > > In both cases, the patch *exposed* a bug in a related utility > software, it is not that the patch itself is buggy. IMO, waving off > the issue by disabling the feature you just risk the bug in the > related software to hit even harder in some not too distant future.
Given the severity of the problem absent tools updates the usual way of handling this is a (sometimes partial) revert for the estimated time to fix the tool chain followed by a resend. This is exactly what we did when an efivarfs bug fixe exposed a bug in the firmware update service: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ffd953c76d3a0bc0f88aeb319589632e8da032dc.ca...@hansenpartnership.com/ It only took about 3 months to get the update through the distros, what would the estimate for this be? Regards, James
