linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/95] 4.9.96-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: <20180424173557.GG22073@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:57 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/95] 4.9.96-stable review

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:23:11PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:26:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> > How about only reporting problems?  Having tests "pass" is the norm and
> > should always happen, right?  That would make the reports smaller.

> I agree, though I would like to provide a bit of context so that people
> new to the process have some idea about testing breadth and depth - but
> it should be a few lines, rather than the hundreds that we have now.

If you link to the web site people can in theory look there (obviously
there's some work going on with the website to make it more readily
digestible) for more context.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)