linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.18 00/33] 3.18.56-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:55:06 -0700
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "kernelci.org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        shuahkh@....samsung.com, patches@...nelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18 00/33] 3.18.56-stable review

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:01:06PM -0700, kernelci.org bot wrote:
>> stable-rc/linux-3.18.y boot: 64 boots: 1 failed, 63 passed (v3.18.55-34-g975c7a9adc27)
>> 
>> Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-3.18.y/kernel/v3.18.55-34-g975c7a9adc27/
>> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-3.18.y/kernel/v3.18.55-34-g975c7a9adc27/
>> 
>> Tree: stable-rc
>> Branch: linux-3.18.y
>> Git Describe: v3.18.55-34-g975c7a9adc27
>> Git Commit: 975c7a9adc2785c43f2d3fc77810678dde72be9e
>> Git URL: http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> Tested: 11 unique boards, 5 SoC families, 12 builds out of 204
>> 
>> Boot Failure Detected:
>> 
>> arm:
>> 
>>     at91_dt_defconfig
>>         at91sam9261ek: 1 failed lab
>
> I'm guessing this is ok?

Yes, it's OK.  After discussions with at91 maintainers, this platform
was known broken in v3.18, so we need to blacklist.

> Anyway, thanks for testing all of these, but the number of boots seems
> really low, is that expected at the moment?

It's really low because my lab, which has the most boards, has been
offline due to some equipment failure, and it's taking me some time to
get things back online due to lack of time.

Some results for mainline should start trickling in today, and then I'll
see about enabling stable trees.

Kevin