linux-kernel - Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq

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: <CAMuHMdW9Rz=ZQ=wWg=vGJAzzM85+UnN1otKfJzVvbkTkPQ2g2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 10:41:48 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Matt Hart <matthew.hart@...aro.org>, mgalka@...labora.com,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq

Hi Guillaume,

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Guillaume Tucker
<guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:
> On 28/05/2019 08:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:13 AM Guillaume Tucker
> > <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:
> >> This commit has now been reverted in mainline.  Would it be OK
> >> for you to rebase your for-next branch on v5.2-rc2 or cherry-pick
> >> the revert to avoid recurring bisections?
> >>
> >> Ideally this should have been fixed or reverted in mainline
> >> before v5.2-rc1 was released, or even earlier when this was first
> >> found in -next on 13th May.  Unfortunately it was overlooked and
> >> then spread to other branches like yours.
> >
> > I'm afraid it's gonna spread to even more for-next branches, as most
> > subsystem maintainers base their for-next branch on the previous rc1
> > release.  Typically maintainers do not rebase their for-next branches,
> > and do not cherry-pick fixes, unless they are critical for their
> > subsystem.  So you can expect this to show up in e.g. the m68k for-next
> > branch soon...
>
> That is what I feared, thanks for confirming.
>
> > Can't you mark this as a known issue, to prevent spending cycles on the
> > same bisection, and sending out more bisection reports for the same
> > issue?
>
> Not really, so I've disabled bisections in the linux-gpio tree
> and a few other maintainers' trees for now.  I'll see if we can
> come up with a more systematic way of suppressing bisections in
> similar cases (i.e. the issue has been fixed in mainline later
> than the base commit for the branch being tested).

Having a systematic way would be good, else you will have to disable
most other maintainers' trees soon, severely limiting test coverage,
or fall back to linux-next testing only, as linux-next will always include\
latest mainline.

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds