linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/104] 4.9.54-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]

Message-ID: <20171008072324.GC1428@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:23:24 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>
Cc:     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,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/104] 4.9.54-stable review

On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 11:56:17AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 6, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.54 release.
> > There are 104 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 Sun Oct  8 08:37:55 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-4.9.54-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-4.9.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> From Linaro’s validation farm we have the following test results for this 4.9.54-rc1. TI's 32 bit arm board the X15 is a new addition.  Also this time around more of LTP is being run. There is triage to do and you’ll notice that I’m differentiating between ‘known failures’ and ‘failures’ in the data below. The later obviously will get looked at so we can graduate failures to known failures/fixes and improve finding regressions. (Anyone want to help?) In summary I wouldn’t hold up 4.9.54 based on the failures in the new data below.  Given it’s a Sat, the Mrs has plans, I’ve no time to do further digging until later.

/me hands Tom some '\n' characters...

:)

> kernel: 4.9.54-rc1
> git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> git branch: linux-4.9.y
> git commit: 1852eae92c460813692808234da35d142a405ab7
> git describe: v4.9.53
> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.53
> 
> 
> No regressions (compared to build v4.9.52-65-gaceea42c68d9)

How did your arm64 test build?  There was a build regression in the -rc1
release, are you sure you actually ran the correct image?

Thanks for testing this, finding out the root of these problems this
week would be great.

greg k-h