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]

Date:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:10:23 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        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 25/07/19 22:57, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 03:19:33PM -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
>> I would still prefer to run the latest tests against all kernel versions
>> (but better control when we upgrade it). Like I said, we can handle
>> expected failures, and it would even help to validate backports for
>> fixes that do get backported. I'm afraid on your behalf that snapping
>> (and maintaining) branches per kernel branch is going to be a lot to
>> manage.
> 
> Having the branches would be beneficial for kernel developers as well,
> e.g. on multiple occasions I've spent time hunting down non-existent KVM
> bugs, only to realize my base kernel was stale with respect to kvm-unit-tests.
> 
> My thought was to have a mostly-unmaintained branch for each major kernel
> version, e.g. snapshot a working version of kvm_unit_tests when the KVM
> pull request for the merge window is sent, and for the most part leave it
> at that.  I don't think it would introduce much overhead, but then again,
> I'm not the person who would be maintaining this :-)
> 

Yes, I agree.  Stable backports that have fixes in kvm-unit-tests are
relatively rare, so the branch would hardly move after a release is cut.

Paolo