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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171206153353.GD29623@kroah.com> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:33:53 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.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>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-stable review On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 08:11:26PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 5 December 2017 at 11:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote: > >> > >> > >> > On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.4 release. > >> > There are 95 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 Dec 6 16:00:27 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-4.14.4-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-4.14.y > >> > and the diffstat can be found below. > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > > >> > greg k-h > >> > > >> > >> Compiled, booted and ran the following package unit tests without regressions on x86_64 > >> > >> boringssl : > >> go test target:0/0/5764/5764/5764 PASS > >> ssl_test : 10 pass > >> crypto_test : 28 pass > >> e2fsprogs: > >> make check : 340 pass > >> sqlite > >> make test : 143914 pass > >> drm > >> make check : 15 pass > >> modetest, drmdevice : pass > >> alsa-lib > >> make check : 2 pass > >> bluez > >> make check : 25 pass > >> libusb > >> stress : 4 pass > > > > How do the above tests stress the kernel? Aren't they just > > verifications that the source code in the package is correct? > > > > I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in > > _any_ kernel release? > > > > I know the drm developers have a huge test suite that they use to verify > > their kernel changes, why not use that? > > Are you referring to the igt-gpu-tools [1]? They also have a CI [2] > that runs these tests, but almost 98% of the tests are i915 specific / > can be only tested on i915 for now. Though I have chatted with Daniel > V a couple of times, and we do see a good scope of collaboration in > getting these tested on ARM as well. Well, you all are testing x86 for the stable trees, right, why can't you run the i915 tests? :) > Also, these are drm-specific tests, not testing generic kernel > features per-se. Just my 2 cents here. drm-specific things _are_ part of the kernel api, right? thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists