linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/92] 4.4.133-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:   Fri, 25 May 2018 03:04:28 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/92] 4.4.133-stable review

On 24 May 2018 at 23:47, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:06:52PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.133 release.
>> > There are 92 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 09:31:28 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: 4.4.133-rc1
>> git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
>> git branch: linux-4.4.y
>> git commit: 915a3d7cdea9daa9e9fb6b855f10c1312e6910c4
>> git describe: v4.4.132-93-g915a3d7cdea9
>> Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.4-oe/build/v4.4.132-93-g915a3d7cdea9
>>
>>
>> No regressions (compared to build v4.4.132-71-g180635995c36)
>>
>
> Shouldn't this compare against v4.4.132 ?
>
> I looked into kselftest/rtnetlink.sh test results.
> The test history is a bit confusing.
>
> - v4.4.131-57-ge33795f7a573 and earlier passed
> - v4.4.132 failed
> - v4.4.132-30-ga102378c6551 passed
> ...
> - v4.4.132-70-gaa7ab28e9c5e passed
> - v4.4.132-71-g180635995c36 and later failed
>
> Does that mean that this specific test is unreliable ?

kselftest rtnetlink.sh test case failure is not a regression on 4.16,
4.14, 4.9 and 4.4 builds.
Because it used to skip due to missing tc tool.

Now the ''tc' tool added to Open Embedded build and test running and
reported failed.
This is not a regression in the kernel.
It is a change in the user space.

Old output
============
SKIP: Could not run test without the tc tool
selftests: rtnetlink.sh [PASS]
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/225015#L2255


New output
=============
RTNETLINK answers: Operation not supported
Cannot find device \"test-dummy0\"
FAIL: cannot add dummy interface
selftests: rtnetlink.sh [FAIL]
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/226352#L3375

Ref bug link:
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3834

- Naresh