[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200304152546.qhfop74fuwmr6iop@xps.therub.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0600
From: Dan Rue <dan.rue@...aro.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 000/176] 5.5.8-stable review
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 12:52:32PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:22:30PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > > So why is this "Vulnerable"? Because it didn't think it could find my
> > > > kernel image for some odd reason, despite it really being in /boot/ (I
> > > > don't use netboot)
> >
> > Now I know the real reason why this test failed.
> > With this note we can conclude this is not a regression.
> >
> > No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386 for 4.19, 5.4 and 5.5 branches.
>
> Great, thanks for confirming and for testing all of these.
We originally added spectre-meltdown-checker to lkft for informational
purposes, so that we could compare its report to any actual tests that
produce spectre/meltdown related failures (and help determine if the
problem is hardware/firmware or kernel). In practice, it's never been
helpful (because it's not an actual test) and so we'll be removing it
from LKFT.
Dan
>
> greg k-h
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists