linux-kernel - Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp

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: <20151007142133.GA18322@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:21:33 +0800
From:	Fengguang Wu <lkp@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	josh@...htriplett.org, fweisbec@...il.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	kbuild-all@...org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move
 rcu_report_exp_rnp() to allow consolidation

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:44:32PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> 
> > > Wu, is there a tag one can include to ward off this patch sucking robot
> > > prematurely?
> > 
> > Yes. The best way may be to push the patches to a git tree known to
> > 0day robot:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux
> > 
> > So that it's tested first there. You'll then get private email reports
> > if it's a private git branch.
> 
> Right, but if I can't be bothered to compile test a patch, I also cannot
> be bothered to stuff it into git :-)

OK, that's understandable.

> > We may also add a rule: only send private reports for patches with
> > "RFC", "Not-yet-signed-off-by:", etc.
> 
> How about not building when there's no "^Signed-off-by:" at all?

That's a good idea: no need to test quick demo-of-idea patches.

> Even private build fails for patches like this -- esp. 3+ -- gets
> annoying real quick.
> 
> Also note that this 'patch' has: $subject ~ /^Re:/, nor did it have
> "^Subject:" like headers in the body.

That's good clues, too. So how about make the rule

        Skip test if no "^Signed-off-by:" and Subject =~ /^Re:/

For a patch posted inside a discussion thread, as long as it have
"^Signed-off-by:", I guess the author is serious and the patch could
be tested seriously.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/