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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:00:37 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> Cc: LKP <lkp@...org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>, Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: email/patch test requests to 0day robot On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:03:52AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> We actually already test LKML patch in that way (Xiaolong maintains >> this feature). Nevertheless if developers specify "base-commit:" it >> could help eliminate the guessing works by the dumb robot. We'll >> appreciate if the "base-commit:" or "base-patchid:" tags are listed >> in the patches, especially in some non-obvious situations. > >Can I specify multiple base commits for testing stable backports? > >For example > >base-commit: v4.9.11, v4.4.50, v3.10.105,... That's reasonable and useful form. BTW for stable testing, it could be more convenient to specify the branch names: stable/linux-4.9.y stable/linux-4.4.y stable/linux-3.10.y There is also the RC stable tree available: linux-stable-rc/linux-4.9.y linux-stable-rc/linux-4.4.y BTW it looks a bit inconsistent about the tree names "stable" and "linux-stable-rc". These are the current names the robot refer to each git tree: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux/stable https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git/tree/repo/linux/linux-stable-rc I could rename the latter to "stable-rc" if no other opinions. >> Such tags could be regarded as "explicit" test requests, where we could >> send "BUILD COMPLETE" emails as a response (comparing to our normal >> LKML patch tests, which only build regressions will trigger an email >> notification). > >Yap, similar to those you guys sent when a new branch on k.org has been >tested. Yes. >Btw, can we make the format layout this way: > >patch > >--- > ><0day bot tags> > >--- > >so that when we send it to lkml, it doesn't interfere with review by >slapping the tags at the beginning of the patch? Sure. In fact we currently search for the tags in the whole email body. >Also, should we CC some special mailing list which the 0day bot parses >or lkml is enough? There are dozens of mailing lists monitored, so the CC could grow too large to look "normal". So I changed the email subject to make it more obvious to people. >Cool stuff. Thank you! Fengguang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists