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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:54:50 -0500
From:   Dan Rue <dan.rue@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, 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 4.9 000/104] 4.9.54-stable review

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:33:47PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:23:00AM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:11:55AM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:37:43PM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >> 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?
> > > > 
> > > > So the header in that report was wrong. That's a c/n/p error on my
> > > > part. I was in a rush to get you data before I was going to be gone
> > > > for the day on Sat and wanting to get what we had into your hands
> > > > before the Sunday deadline.
> > > > 
> > > > The test results was for the RC as of commit
> > > > 0e59436504287cddb9663857ae69c100b55f5e85
> > > > 
> > > > If you want to see the 'ugly' raw data it's all here :
> > > > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe/build/v4.9.53-105-g0e5943650428/
> > > 
> > > I still don't understand.  That _build_ should have failed, how did it
> > > succeed enough to actually run the tests at all?
> > 
> > It looks like the build failure shown at
> > http://arm-soc.lixom.net/buildlogs/stable-rc/v4.9.53-105-g0e59436/
> > requires CONFIG_KASAN to be set, which we do not set. All the other
> > configs built, including ours, which can be seen at
> > http://snapshots.linaro.org/openembedded/lkft/morty/hikey/rpb/linux-stable-rc-4.9/67/defconfig
> 
> Thanks for the explaination.
> 
> How come you don't enable KASAN?  Any other options you all should be
> enabling to get better test coverage that you are not?
> 
> Are you doing a 'make allmodconfig' type build for these arches?

We build what is needed to boot the board and run the test suites.
Others do build testing really well (as noted in this thread), so
there's not a need for redundant efforts there.  Incidentally, we are
often limited on things like kernel sizes on embedded boards, so it's
not prudent to try to run unnecessarily large kernels.

Dan