linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/241] 4.9.89-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:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:45:09 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
        patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/241] 4.9.89-stable review

On 03/21/2018 06:31 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:28:29PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 06:35:01AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 03/19/2018 11:04 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.89 release.
>>>> There are 241 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 Wed Mar 21 18:07:03 UTC 2018.
>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For v4.9.88-239-g393003b:
>>>
>>> Build results:
>>> 	total: 145 pass: 143 fail: 2
>>> Failed builds:
>>> 	arm:allmodconfig
>>> 	x86_64:allnoconfig
>>>
>>> arm:
>>>
>>> sound/soc/sh/rcar/cmd.c: In function 'rsnd_cmd_init':
>>> sound/soc/sh/rcar/cmd.c:85:14: warning: array subscript is below array bounds
>>
>> Oops, missed this one for -rc3, let me go dig...
> 
> I don't see anything in this -rc that looks to be causing this.  Has
> this warning been there before, or is it new now?
> 

Probably old. I only mentioned it because you had asked to be informed about warnings.
Does it make sense to bisect ?

Guenter