> But in 100 machine hours of a typical workload doesn't really show anything about this bug It does though: it shows it isn't a dire usability problem. A mach

> But in 100 machine hours of a typical workload doesn't really show anything about this bug It does though: it shows it isn't a dire usability problem. A machine with this bug is still able to do meaningful work, it just might eat it's own tail occasionally. If I ran N servers with this bug and had an automated thing to whack them when they tripped over it, how many would be out of commission at any given time? All signs point to it being a pretty small number. As long as data loss isn't a concern, a sysadmin would probably choose to wait a couple weeks for the fix through the proper channels, rather than going to a lot of trouble to do it immediately themselves (which also carries risk). This is also why I was curious about kconfig: my test boxes have all the hardening options turned on right now, I could see how that might make it less likely to trigger. I completely agree the "uniform random bug" model is only so useful, since an artificial reproducer obviously blows it out of the water. But as I said elsewhere, I've seen it be shockingly predictive when applied to large numbers of machines with bugs like this.