Re: [REGRESSION] secretmem: SIGBUS on memfd_secret() pages while perf record runs

[Sasha Levin]

On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 05:23:53PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 10:30:10AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 10:18:34AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
>
> > > It was sent late on Friday in a week that I was ill and it's Saturday
> > > pre-LPC, so that's hardly a timeframe that I could reasonably have replied.
> >
> > Keep in mind that our release cycles are fairly short, so this shouldn't be too
> > big of a deal?
>
> I mean the same argument could be made both ways :)
>
> > We will generally go for the safe option of dropping a commit that introduces a
> > regression as it's fairly easy to queue it back up very soon after a
> > diagnosis/fix shows up.
>
> I think we'll have to agree to disagree about what was safe in this situation!

Happy to chat about it at LPC. Our reasoning is that users are better off with
a regression they are aware of, instead of getting surprised every time they
upgrade.

I can see the other side of this, and I think we can do some work to accomodate
this type of preferences from subsystems/authors.

--
Thanks,
Sasha