linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 000/165] 4.14.44-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]

Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 13:30:53 -0500
From:   Dan Rue <dan.rue@...aro.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 000/165] 4.14.44-stable review

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:19:21AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:12:09PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:36:46AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.44 release.
> > > There are 165 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 Sat May 26 09:35:46 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.
> > 
> > Summary
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > kernel: 4.14.44-rc1
> > git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> > git branch: linux-4.14.y
> > git commit: 04c57158a60d4a6b72a8d04b39390eb2dbad0e73
> > git describe: v4.14.43-165-g04c57158a60d
> > Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.14-oe/build/v4.14.43-165-g04c57158a60d
> > 
> > 
> > No regressions (compared to build v4.14.43-166-ga3881b7a4d3c)
> > 
> 
> Same question as before. Why not against v4.14.43 ?

It's because the system just looks at the previous build. I agree that
it should compare against the release. In any event, we go through all
failures manually before reporting "no regressions" just in case the
automatic regression detection missed it. We also review the report for
any intermediary test results for the same reason.

> 
> Thanks,
> Guenter
> 
> > 
> > Ran 11106 total tests in the following environments and test suites.
> > 
> > Environments
> > --------------
> > - dragonboard-410c - arm64
> > - hi6220-hikey - arm64
> > - juno-r2 - arm64
> > - qemu_arm
> > - qemu_arm64
> > - qemu_x86_64
> > - x15 - arm
> > - x86_64
> > 
> > Test Suites
> > -----------
> > * boot
> > * kselftest
> > * libhugetlbfs
> > * ltp-containers-tests
> > * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests
> > * ltp-filecaps-tests
> > * ltp-fs-tests
> > * ltp-fs_bind-tests
> > * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests
> > * ltp-fsx-tests
> > * ltp-hugetlb-tests
> > * ltp-io-tests
> > * ltp-ipc-tests
> > * ltp-math-tests
> > * ltp-nptl-tests
> > * ltp-pty-tests
> > * ltp-sched-tests
> > * ltp-securebits-tests
> > * ltp-syscalls-tests
> > * ltp-timers-tests
> > * ltp-cap_bounds-tests
> > * kselftest-vsyscall-mode-native
> > * kselftest-vsyscall-mode-none
> > 
> > -- 
> > Linaro LKFT
> > https://lkft.linaro.org