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, 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