linux-kernel - Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

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, 8 Oct 2007 14:26:34 -0500
From:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	"Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	"Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
> > So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
> > necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. "fixed the bug which I was
> > always able to reproduce before") or if the tester is known to have
> > performed rigorous and sufficiently broad tests.
>
> Well, you can still include those test-method details in the body of the
> message in addition to adding the "Tested-by:".
>
> Does "Tested-by" just mean they ran some relevant test on the final
> version of the patch?  The really hard part is often the initial work
> required to find a good reproduceable test case, capture the right error
> report, or bisect to the right commit.  I think that also counts as
> "testing".  And it'd be nice to have a tag for those sorts of
> contributions, partly just as another way to ackowledge them.
---

Tested-by should, at the very least, have a description of the test
environment in the body (suggesting that the change compiled and ran
in that environment). Preferably it should also have a description of
the test or test suite run and whether that test failed on an
unpatched system.

scott
-- 
scott preece
-
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/