linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/47] 4.4.92-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, 11 Oct 2017 18:47:50 +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 4.4 00/47] 4.4.92-stable review

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:12:15AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> Let’s try that again with less HTML stupidness ….
> 
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.92 release.
> > There are 47 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 12 19:50:01 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-4.4.92-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
> 
> Full test results from Linaro’s test farm for 4.4.
> 
> Note there are some further regressions we’ve seen on x15 (arm) beyond the one I reported 
> last night and that Sumit then commented on.
> 
> We’ve also moved up to the recently released LTP.

Those two sentances could not possibly be related now, right?  :)

You did test the latest version of LTP on a "known good kernel/system",
ahead of time?  Are these regressions to be expected?

x86 doesn't even look right here:

> dell-poweredge-r200 - x86_64 
> * boot - 1 pass
> * kselftest - 44 pass - 24 known failures

1/3 failure is ok?

> * libhugetlbfs - 76 pass - 1 skip
> * ltp-cap_bounds-tests - 1 pass
> * ltp-commands-tests - 27 pass - 13 skip - 5 known failures (ksh not in test img) 
> * ltp-containers-tests - 63 pass - 18 fail (these are being looked at looks like setup issues with veth0) 
> * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests - 2 pass
> * ltp-filecaps-tests - 2 pass
> * ltp-fs-tests - 61 pass - 1 skip
> * ltp-fs_bind-tests - 2 pass
> * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests - 19 pass
> * ltp-fsx-tests - 2 pass
> * ltp-hugetlb-tests - 22 pass
> * ltp-io-tests - 3 pass
> * ltp-ipc-tests - 9 pass
> * ltp-math-tests - 11 pass
> * ltp-nptl-tests - 2 pass
> * ltp-pty-tests - 4 pass
> * ltp-sched-tests - 13 pass - 1 skip
> * ltp-securebits-tests - 4 pass
> * ltp-syscalls-tests - 960 pass - 164 skip - 13 known failures

syscalls fail?  Why skip so many?

thanks,

greg k-h