linux-kernel - Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:55:01 +0800
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, yi1.li@...ux.intel.com,
        takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for
> > > existing APIs in older kernels, the async and custom fallback one are an
> > > example.  There are a series of test cases later added which could help
> > > test LTS kernels. Would Linaro pick these test driver enhancements to help
> > > increase coverage of tests? Or is it not worth it? If its worth it then
> > > what I was curious was how to help make this easier for this process to
> > > bloom.
> > 
> > I don't understand, what do you mean by "pick these test driver
> > enhancements"?  What kind of "knobs" are there in tests?  Shouldn't the
> > tests "just work" with no kind of special configuration of the tests be
> > needed?  No user is going to know to enable something special.
> 
> Test driver knobs, so for instance the async and custom patches referenced
> enable the shell script to use the async api and the custom API.

Ah, testing kernel code, that makes more sense.  I don't really know, if
the apis are present in the older kernel trees, I don't have a problem
having them be backported to stable kernel releases, as this isn't code
that people are actually running on a "normal" system.

thanks,

greg k-h