linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/104] 4.9.54-stable review

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:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:23:43 -0500
From:   Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/104] 4.9.54-stable review

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:37:43PM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> kernel: 4.9.54-rc1
>> >> git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> >> git branch: linux-4.9.y
>> >> git commit: 1852eae92c460813692808234da35d142a405ab7
>> >> git describe: v4.9.53
>> >> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.53
>>
>> >>
>> >> No regressions (compared to build v4.9.52-65-gaceea42c68d9)
>> >
>> > How did your arm64 test build?  There was a build regression in the -rc1
>> > release, are you sure you actually ran the correct image?
>>
>> So the header in that report was wrong. That's a c/n/p error on my
>> part. I was in a rush to get you data before I was going to be gone
>> for the day on Sat and wanting to get what we had into your hands
>> before the Sunday deadline.
>>
>> The test results was for the RC as of commit
>> 0e59436504287cddb9663857ae69c100b55f5e85
>>
>> If you want to see the 'ugly' raw data it's all here :
>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.53-105-g0e5943650428/
>
> I still don't understand.  That _build_ should have failed, how did it
> succeed enough to actually run the tests at all?

Looks like it's because we don't build with CONFIG_KASAN.

In the case where the build fails, the system won't run tests since there's no
image to run. Likewise if we have a situation where the build fails
for some arches
but not all we'll only get partial test results for the builds that
succeeded and
likewise nothing for what failed.

The results reported were based on commit id
0e59436504287cddb9663857ae69c100b55f5e85

Unfortunately that commit id doesn't exist anymore since it was
replaced by the 4.9.54 release which was commit ID
f37eb7b586f1dd24a86c50278c65322fc6787722

(and yes the release test results == rc test results that were reported)

Things get a little confusing when one can't go back and compare
commit ids. Losing history kinda sucks.

I've thought about some other way to uniquely tie results to an rc
patch maybe working
off of : https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/

But like in this instance if there isn't both the rc1 and rc2 for
posterity it wouldn't help.
Least for now we have commit ids, git describe and kernel version from
the Makefile.

Why wasn't there an rc2 patch file?

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h


-- 
Regards,
Tom

Director, Linaro Mobile Group
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
irc: tgall_foo | skype : tom_gall

"Where's the kaboom!? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering
kaboom!" Marvin Martian