linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/102] 4.9.93-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: <20180407061118.GF18744@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Apr 2018 08:11:18 +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,
        Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.dechesne@...aro.org>,
        Anibal Limon <anibal.limon@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@...aro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/102] 4.9.93-stable review

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 05:25:24PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.93 release.
> > There are 102 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 Apr  8 08:42:55 UTC 2018.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> No regressions on arm64, arm and x86_64.
> 
> There is a new test failure on dragonboard 410c (arm64) in
> kselftest/cpu-on-off-test. However, it looks like the test was failing
> but giving a false "PASS" on previous versions of 4.9. This -RC seems to
> have changed the behavior enough to cause the test to actually mark a
> failure.
> 
> In any event, this looks like a db410c-specific pre-existing issue that we have
> already escalated to our Qualcomm team. Details can be found at
> https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3723 for those interested.

Thanks for testing these and letting me know.

greg k-h