linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-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, 6 Dec 2017 21:09:58 +0530
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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 6 December 2017 at 21:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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?  :)

I'll check with the DRM guys, but my guess is the DRM framework itself
is a very fast changing one, and the current i915 tests might not even
apply for the stable kernels. :)
>
>> 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?
True that :)

By writing this, I did want to highlight that the 'large bucket'
wasn't generic features, but a very driver-specific one right now.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h