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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:00:37 +0800
From:   Fengguang Wu <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:     LKP <>, lkml <>,
        Ye Xiaolong <>,
        Philip Li <>,
        Huang Ying <>,
        Greg KH <>,
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:


There is also the RC stable tree available:


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:

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 has been


>Btw, can we make the format layout this way:
><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!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists