linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/46] 4.4.94-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:   Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:54:38 -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 4.4 00/46] 4.4.94-stable review

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:18:38PM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.94 release.
>> > There are 46 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>> > let me know.
>> >
>> > Responses should be made by Sat Oct 21 13:48:23 UTC 2017.
>> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
>> >
>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>> >     kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.4.94-rc1.gz
>> > or in the git tree and branch at:
>> >  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.4.y
>> > and the diffstat can be found below.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>>
>> Results from the Linaro test farm. This report is in two parts. The second part and reported
>> separately is the HiKey results since there are platform support patches added to the LTS
>> to make it work.
>>
>> Summary
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> kernel: 4.4.94-rc1
>> git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> git branch: linux-4.4.y
>> git commit: cc1d76b2d639a37b3e6aec284b6838637d826f08
>> git describe: v4.4.93-47-gcc1d76b2d639
>> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.4-oe/build/v4.4.93-47-gcc1d76b2d639
>>
>> Regressions (compared to build v4.4.92-29-g51c43ad676c4)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> x15 - arm:
>>  kselftest:
>>    * raw_skew
>>
>>    * test src: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.13.tar.xz
>>
>>  ltp-syscalls-tests:
>>    * fcntl36
>>
>>    * test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git
>>
>> fcntl36 and raw_skew we’ll looking into.
>>
>>  ltp-timers-tests:
>>    * leapsec_timer
>>    * runltp_timers
>>
>>    * test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git
>>
>> This one has been working and just failed with this RC cycle. It’s only failing on 32 bit arm.
>>
>> Needs to be looked into.
>
> When you say "Needs to be looked into", does that mean that you are
> pointing this out for someone else to do this (i.e. help, someone look
> at this!), or are you going to be working to figure it out?

Help is always great. We've got it covered.

One of the team that works on this board has been looking into it.

As of this second, and looking within the context of 4.4, 4.9 and mainline data
what we're looking at is intermitted failures involving raw_skew from
kselftest and leapsec_timer
from ltp_timers that is present across all those 3 kernel version and
their respective streams.
(by stream I mean FOO, FOO-rc1, FOO+1, FOO+1-rc1, etc)

As such we can rule these out detecting a regression in the new RC
patches. Likely it's board
specific.

For fcntl36 it's been intermittent only through the series of 4.4
kernels. At the moment we just
have one type of arm 32bit board, so we don't have a history here
where we could refer to and say
fails occasionally on one board but not others. (We'll get there, Rome
wasn't built in a day) At the
time I reported results I couldn't narrow between a board specific
issue, an arch specific issue or
an issue that my have arose due to a bad patch in the RC.

Today however with fcntl36 produced failure for the very first time on
mainline only on X15 which is
a 32 bit arm board.

That should rule out the bad patch scenario in the new RC series.

Having result history you can look back into across multiple versions
and arches is awesome.
Doing all the comparisons, coming at the data from multiple directions
and triple checking to
make sure data is pointing you to reasonable conclusions, that's the fun part.

> 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