linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/35] second batch of missing lustre 2.8 patches

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: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1611141727250.29600@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:27:57 +0000 (GMT)
From:   James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] second batch of missing lustre 2.8 patches

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:30:30PM -0500, James Simmons wrote:
> > More fixes missing from the upstream client. Also a nice cleanup
> > with the removal of cl_req which is no longer needed. More cleanup
> > for lustre_idl.h which is a uapi header. Like the last batch these
> > patches are independent of order.
> 
> I didn't apply a few of these (string parsing stuff, and build
> breakages.)
> 
> What's the plan for getting this out of staging?  I feel like you all
> are still adding new features along with these "cleanups".  Normally
> that's fine, but I really really want to get this out of staging as it's
> been there for way too long.  When is that going to happen?

First I should address why the push to bring it into sync with our
prouction code base. One was to make it attractive to our user base.
In my other email I explained that. Second the feed back here has been
so valuable. We are at the point where bugs we haven't found are being
reported here and addressed. Also your input has made the Lustre 
developers to reflect on what we have done. In a way leaving staging will 
be sad since that will stop :-( Lastly I really didn't want to cleanup
the lustre client and then when it left staging do this massive dump
of changes without people like Julia, Dan and you looking at it. I just 
felt that wouldn't of been right.

We are super close to reaching a very important mile stone of reaching
lustre 2.8.0 level of suppport. At this point we can stop at our lustre 
2.8.0 release for the sync since currently most the lustre users out their 
are staying at that version. Secondly the major of patches landed to our 
soon to be release 2.9 version was for the patches missing from the 
staging tree.

So before we consider moving out of staging some gaps need to be filled.
The zero day system has found bugs on platforms we don't have access too.
We really need to hook into that system. Also Julia Lawall Coccinelle
work has been really wonderful. Intel does have a mirror of your tree and
have started the integration of the test harness. For my work I have
using a local private test harness setup. This Intel one is planned for
public consumption. What is done here with Coccinelle and zero day needs
to be intergrated. So this is what needs to be done from our side.

Now for what is required to leave the staging tree. Honestly I can think
of many many many things that need to be done. The question becomes what
has to be done before leaving staging verses what can be completed after
leaving staging. We have the normal style issues and checkpatch issues
which is not much anymore. Then their is the uapi header cleanup. What 
else beyond that?