linux-kernel - Re: bug-introducing patches

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: <20180714173812.xhfwtcijlxebmn2k@devuan>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jul 2018 19:38:12 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "julia.lawall@...6.fr" <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bug-introducing patches

Hi!

> > The way I see it, if a commit can get one or two tested-by, it's a good
> > alternative to a week in -next.
> 
> Agreed. Even their own actually. And I'm not kidding. Those who run large
> amounts of tests on certain patches could really mention is in tested-by,
> as opposed to the most common cases where the code was just regularly
> tested.

Actually, it would be cool to get "Tested: no" and "Tested: compile"
tags in the commit mesages. Sometimes it is clear from the context
that patch was not tested (treewide update of time to 64bit), but
sometime it is not.

This is especially problem for -stable, as it seems that lately
patches are backported from new version without any testing.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html