linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.15 00/55] 4.15.1-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: <20180203051824.GC1329@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Feb 2018 06:18:24 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
        shuahkh@....samsung.com, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        patches@...nelci.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux@...ck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.15 00/55] 4.15.1-stable review

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:35:19PM -0600, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 05:58:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.15.1 release.
> > There are 55 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 Sun Feb  4 14:07:50 UTC 2018.
> > 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-4.15.1-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-4.15.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> 
> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> 
> No regressions since 4.15 release, but you'll notice high failure counts
> in kselftest. These are because it was the first RC and I ran the tests
> multiple times - first without a skipfile, and then again with a partial
> skipfile. All of the failures look like known issues that we also saw on
> 4.15 release.

Why does kselftest need a "skip list"?  Shouldn't all of the tests that
ship in the kernel tree, pass on that release?  Is anyone looking into
the failures?  That seems like a pretty obvious thing :(

And was anyone testing the -rc releases to catch this before 4.15 came
out?  If not, why not?  I thought you all were testing rc releases
now...

Anyway, thanks for the reports.

thanks,

greg k-h