linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 000/103] 4.4.70-stable review

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:   Wed, 24 May 2017 05:47:13 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "kernelci.org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
        patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 000/103] 4.4.70-stable review

On 05/24/2017 12:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:59:35PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc/linux-4.4.y boot: 54 boots: 0 failed, 54 passed (v4.4.69-104-g2ebff3b7590b)
>>
>> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.69-104-g2ebff3b7590b/
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.69-104-g2ebff3b7590b/
>>
>> Tree: stable-rc
>> Branch: linux-4.4.y
>> Git Describe: v4.4.69-104-g2ebff3b7590b
>> Git Commit: 2ebff3b7590b0a73c6b383d04928cdfdf56d0b10
>> Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> Tested: 11 unique boards, 7 SoC families, 18 builds out of 199
> 
> 54 passed?  I had a bug here such that all x86 builds were crashing, in
> the core tty layer, which seems odd that anything would be able to boot
> with this tree...
> 
Final qemu test result was
	total: 115 pass: 89 fail: 26
with only the x86 and x86_64 images crashing, so this isn't entirely surprising,
assuming kernelci does not (yet) run any x86/x86_64 qemu tests.

Guenter