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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:28:24 +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 Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:14:09AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 3/20/19 1:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> To clarify, I'm pushing for investment in kernel.ci to achieve that goal
> that it could provide the same 0-day capability for Arm and others.

Great, that's what I was trying to suggest :)

> It'll ultimately result in duplicated effort vs if 0-day were open.

"Half" of 0-day is open, but it's that other half that is still
needed...

thanks,

greg k-h