linux-kernel - Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

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: <20190320050659.GA16580@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:06:59 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        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 Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:46:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 2/13/19 2:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> 
> >> So really, it sounds like a low hanging fruit: we don't really need to
> >> write much more testing code code nor do we have to refactor existing
> >> test suites. We just need to make sure the right tests are running on
> >> stable kernels. I really want to clarify what each subsystem sees as
> >> "sufficient" (and have that documented somewhere).
> > 
> > kernel.ci and 0-day and Linaro are starting to add the fs and mm tests
> > to their test suites to address these issues (I think 0-day already has
> > many of them).  So this is happening, but not quite obvious.  I know I
> > keep asking Linaro about this :(
> 
> We're working on investments for LDCG[0] in 2019 that include kernel CI
> changes for server use cases. Please keep us informed of what you folks
> ultimately want to see, and I'll pass on to the steering committee too.
> 
> Ultimately I've been pushing for a kernel 0-day project for Arm. That's
> probably going to require a lot of duplicated effort since the original
> 0-day project isn't open, but creating an open one could help everyone.

Why are you trying to duplicate it on your own?  That's what kernel.ci
should be doing, please join in and invest in that instead.  It's an
open source project with its own governance and needs sponsors, why
waste time and money doing it all on your own?

thanks,

greg k-h