linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

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]

Message-Id: <200701111208.43173.cijoml@volny.cz>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:08:41 +0100
From:	CIJOML <cijoml@...ny.cz>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>, rml@...ell.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3)

I all,

I can't work on this until 23.2.2007 because of  my diploma thesis.
But my opinion is - if you make a release with this bug, you'll see more 
reporters soon. It can be than fixed in 2.6.20.1 - I haven't find any data 
corruptions yet.

Michal


Dne čtvrtek 11 leden 2007 11:54 Adrian Bunk napsal(a):
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:21:23AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > >Subject    : BUG: at fs/inotify.c:172 set_dentry_child_flags()
> > > > >References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7785
> > > > >Submitter  : Cijoml Cijomlovic Cijomlov <cijoml@...ny.cz>
> > > > >Handled-By : John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>
> > > > >Status     : problem is being debugged
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that this is actually a regression for 2.6.20-rc.
> > >
> > > The submitter says it doesn't occur in 2.6.19.
> >
> > Any chance that the submitter could do git bisect? (added to CC). From
> > the bugzilla entry it seems to be well reproducible for him.
>
> That's a possible but time intensive approach for this kind of bug.
>
> I'd expect bisecting such an "at least 1 times a day" bug to take at
> about one month.
>
> And that's not a high number, that's a realistic estimate considering
> that you have to test a dozen kernels and verifying that a kernel is
> good takes 2-3 days.
>
> > Jiri Kosina
>
> cu
> Adrian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/