linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/37] 4.4.136-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:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:19:24 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
        patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/37] 4.4.136-stable review

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:30:32PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:01:05PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.136 release.
> > There are 37 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 Thu Jun  7 17:00:49 UTC 2018.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > 
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.4.136-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.4.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> > 
> 
> Merged, compiled with -Werror, and installed onto my Pixel 2 XL and
> OnePlus 5.
> 
> No issues in general usage or dmesg (although I somehow didn't catch the
> VTI issue in 4.4.134 so don't know how valuable this is anymore...)

Great, thanks for testing.  The VTI issue was odd in that it required
the AOSP networking tests to be run to be triggered, and they were a
"stress-test" more than a "functional test", which is why I think no one
else caught it.

greg k-h