linux-kernel - Re: v4.17-rc1: regressions on N900, N950

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: <20180522215638.GC2299@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi>
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 00:56:38 +0300
From:   Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        sre@...nel.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, tony@...mide.com, khilman@...nel.org,
        ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com, patrikbachan@...il.com,
        serge@...lyn.com, abcloriens@...il.com, clayton@...ftyguy.net,
        martijn@...xit.nl, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
        Filip Matijević <filip.matijevic.pz@...il.com>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: v4.17-rc1: regressions on N900, N950

Hi,

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:58:26PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-05-22 22:41:39, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > My device worked with v4.17-rc1 (haven't found time to test newer kernels),
> > but if you say the probe order is random then we must find some proper way
> > to express the dependency.
> 
> I started bisect, but.. that will probably not be useful.
> 
> If your device works ok in v4.17-rc1, it probably works in newer -rcs,
> too.

Actually, my statement may be bogus... Now I tried again with -rc1
(and also -rc6) and it fails... But v4.16 works.

> Thanks for the ordering hint, I'll try to figure out what is going on
> there.

My bisection pointed to 6fa7324ac5489ad43c4b6351355b869bc5458bef which
doesn't seem to make any sense...?! So maybe there really is something
random stuff going on? :-(

A.