linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking-selftest: add option to proceed through unexpected failures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJfuBxzhgQ+fTA-iyqLrpZ-=9ipXZGOCznRMM8AZE5yFOGh6PA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:27:28 -0700
From:   jim.cromie@...il.com
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking-selftest: add option to proceed through
 unexpected failures

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:02 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:00:48PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > Locking selftest is currently (v.5.10-rc3) seeing 14 unexpected failures.
> > Add option to not disable debug_locks, so as to let it reveal any
> > locking flaws in new unrelated work.
>
> I'm assuming this is the arm64 fallout? Mark anything I can do to help
> you there?
>
> The reasoning doesn't make sense though; if it can't pass the selftest,
> then why would you trust any further reports?

because it knows more than I do.
having chosen to proceed anyway,
Im free to discount the advice.