linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/56] 4.4.98-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: <20171115085933.GA25434@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:59:33 +0100
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, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/56] 4.4.98-stable review

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:31:18PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Nov 13, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.98 release.
> > There are 56 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 Wed Nov 15 12:55:32 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-4.4.98-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
> > 
> 
> Results from Linaro’s test farm. One regression detected on x86. We’re doing some re-runs to see if it’s a solid failure or intermittent. It is however a testcase which hasn’t failed in the past.  Also as per usual the HiKey results are reported separate because the platform support isn’t in tree.

I thought I gave you enough \n in the past, did you use all of them up?  :(

Anyway, what is the new x86 failure?

Is it this:

> * ltp-syscalls-tests - skip: 164, fail: 4, pass: 957 

If so, any pointers to the specific log messages, and which tests are
failing?  Digging through the web site isn't the easiest...

And kselftests should have gotten less failures this time around, given
that some of them were patched in this -rc, why didn't that number go
down?

thanks,

greg k-h