linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.2 000/413] 5.2.3-stable review

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: <20190725164610.GE18612@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:46:11 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        wanpengli@...cent.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        patches@...nelci.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, jmattson@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.2 000/413] 5.2.3-stable review

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:30:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/07/19 18:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:10:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 25/07/19 18:09, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>>> This investigation confirms it is a new test code failure on stable-rc 5.2.3
> >>> No, it only confirms that kvm-unit-tests/master fails on 5.2.*.  To confirm
> >>> a new failure in 5.2.3 you would need to show a test that passes on 5.2.2
> >>> and fails on 5.2.3.
> >>
> >> I think he meant "a failure in new test code". :)
> > 
> > Ah, that does appear to be the case.  So just to be clear, we're good, right?
> 
> Yes.  I'm happy to gather ideas on how to avoid this (i.e. 1) if a
> submodule would be useful; 2) where to stick it).

As a starting point, what about adding "stable" branches for each kernel
release to kvm-unit-tests, e.g. linux-5.2.y?  I assume we'd need something
similar for the submodules anyways.