linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/41] 4.4.90-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, 4 Oct 2017 01:29:30 -0700
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/41] 4.4.90-stable review

Hi Greg,

On 4 October 2017 at 00:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:30:14PM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 2017, at 7:21 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.90 release.
>> > There are 41 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>> > let me know.
>> >
>> > Responses should be made by Thu Oct  5 11:42:00 UTC 2017.
>> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
>> >
>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>> >     kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.4.90-rc1.gz
>> > or in the git tree and branch at:
>> >  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.4.y
>> > and the diffstat can be found below.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>> >
>>
>> Test results from the linaro linux kernel functional test farm:
>>
>> kernel: 4.4.90-rc1
>> git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> git branch: linux-4.4.y
>> git commit: 255b4a073a820d2f46a1ce1740f1a9be3de9661a
>> git describe: v4.4.89-42-g255b4a073a82
>> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.4-oe/build/v4.4.89-42-g255b4a073a82
>>
>> No regressions (compared to build v4.4.89-30-gb547584d016b)
>>
>> Boards, architectures and test suites:
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> dell-poweredge-r200 - x86_64
>> * boot - 1 pass
>> * kselftest - 44 pass - 24 known failures
>> * libhugetlbfs - 76 pass - 1 skip
>> * ltp-syscalls-tests - 941 pass - 175 skip - 11 known failures
>>
>>
>> And as a separate but related report, we have HiKey (arm64) results. These are separate because there are some out of tree patches that didn’t quite make 4.4 back in the day, thus for this board the kernel is a blend of the LTS RC + some platform patches.
>>
>> Summary
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> kernel: 4.4.90-rc1
>> git repo: https://git.linaro.org/lkft/arm64-stable-rc.git
>> git tag: 4.4.90-rc1-hikey-20171003
>> git commit: 8b0848771d885b6030233931b2d2039382a1cf73
>> git describe: v4.4.89-352-g8b0848771d88
>> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linaro-hikey-stable-rc-4.4-oe/build/v4.4.89-352-g8b0848771d88
>>
>>
>> No regressions (compared to build v4.4.89-340-ga6279f8aa398)
>>
>> Boards, architectures and test suites:
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> hi6220-hikey - arm64
>> * boot - 1 pass
>> * kselftest - 32 pass - 1 skip - 21 known failures
>> * libhugetlbfs - 90 pass - 1 skip
>> * ltp-syscalls-tests - 960 pass - 138 skip - 2 known failures
>
> Nice, thanks for letting me know, but that seems like a lot of "known
> failures" :(
Most of these failures result from our "mainline kselftest + lts
kernel" combination - this is also visible from the failures seen on
the x86 box as well.
We are working on getting these tests to not run on 4.4 specifically,
as we see most such failures on these kernels.
>
> Any chance you can add a beaglebone black to your 4.4 testing to give it
> some "native arm" test support?  That should run a "stock" 4.4 kernel,
> right?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Best,
Sumit.