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: <CAOQ4uxgQGCSbhppBfhHQmDDXS3TGmgB4m=Vp3nyyWTFiyv6z6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:01:25 +0200
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:37 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:20:00AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > I never saw an email from you or Greg saying, the branch "stable-xxx" is
> > in review. Please run your tests.
>
> That is what my "Subject: [PATCH 4.9 000/137] 4.9.156-stable review"
> type emails are supposed to kick off.  They are sent both to the stable
> mailing list and lkml.
>
> This message already starts the testing systems going for a number of
> different groups out there, do you want to be added to the cc: list so
> you get them directly?
>

No thanks, I'll fix my email filters ;-)

I think the main difference between these review announcements
and true CI is what kind of guaranty you get for a release candidate
from NOT getting a test failure response, which is one of the main
reasons that where holding back xfs stable fixes for so long.

Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to
improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly
available list of tests that the release went through.

Do you have any such list of tests that you *know* are being run,
that you (or Sasha) run yourself or that you actively wait on an
ACK from a group before a release?

Thanks,
Amir.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ