linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/selftests/pkeys: fork() to check for state being preserved

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:16:53 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/selftests/pkeys: fork() to check for state being
 preserved

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 10:57:24AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/3/19 5:52 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> > The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
> > 
> > The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.0, v4.19.13, v4.14.91, v4.9.148, v4.4.169, v3.18.131, 
> > 
> > v4.20.0: Build OK!
> > v4.19.13: Build OK!
> > v4.14.91: Build OK!
> > v4.9.148: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> >     f50b4878329a ("x86/pkeys/selftests: Fix pkey exhaustion test off-by-one")
> 
> Protection keys was merged in 4.8.  We can ignore any of the selftests
> changes before that.
> 
> But, it looks like the 4.9 selftests are a bit behind mainline.
> Probably because I didn't cc stable@ on f50b4878329a.  I don't have a
> strong opinion as to how up-to-date we want to keep the -stable
> selftests.  Shua, is there a usual way that folks do this?

I wouldn't worry too much about selftests.  Usually people run the
latest selftests (like 4.20) on older stable kernels, as they "should"
just work properly (or at least fail gracefully).

thanks,

greg k-h