linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/67] 4.9.91-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180328192403.GB1404@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 21:24:03 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     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, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/67] 4.9.91-stable review

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:28:28PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:21:04PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:50:35AM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:21:45AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:35:01PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > > > > qemu_x86_64
> > > > > * boot - pass: 21
> > > > > * kselftest - skip: 28, pass: 52
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a list of what you are skipping anywhere?  There was some
> > > > x86 changes that I had to backport that I was worried about getting
> > > > right here, are you running the x86 kselftests?
> > > 
> > > Yes we run the x86 selftests. Here's the full list of what ran and what was
> > > skipped. Remember (I know you know, but for anyone else observing), we
> > > run kselftest from 4.15.
> > 
> > That's good, as kselftest from 4.9 was a bit broken for x86, which is
> > why I backported a bunch of patches for it for this release :)
> 
> I've noticed these backports. Should we expect to see selftests
> supported in LTS kernels going forward? What is the current policy on
> taking selftest backports?

I applied patches that prevented the x86 patches from even being built
on a modern system (i.e. my laptop).  I didn't add any new
functionality, I just wanted to verify that there were no regressions,
which is hard to do when the tests do not build.

As for what to run, yes, use the latest possible seems like the best
solution so far.

thanks,

greg k-h