linux-kernel - Re: QA: Monitor Linux log messages as port of release (candidate) testing

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:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:53:54 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QA: Monitor Linux log messages as port of release (candidate)
 testing

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Guenter,
> 
> 
> Thank you for testing release candidates and releases [1]. Is your test
> setup documented somewhere?
> 
Not really, except its source is available at github:
	https://github.com/groeck/linux-build-test

> If not happening already, could the Linux messages (at least up to log level
> warning) also be monitored? For example, in Linux 5.14, a new warning snuck
> in by cefc7ca462 (ACPI: PRM: implement OperationRegion handler for the
> PlatformRtMechanism subtype) [2], which could have been caught early on, and
> fixed before the release.
> 
> The test summaries would then also notify about possible behavior change.
> 
Logs are available and can be examined at kerneltests.org/builders.
Reports are generated manually, so it would be way too much effort to add
build warnings to those. Besides, logs are way too noisy to be useful in a
summary e-mail.

Also, Geert's build reports already provide build warnings and errors.
The same applies to reports sent by 0-day. Indeed, I do see at least
one 0-day report against commit cefc7ca46235. What would be the point
of adding yet another report of build warnings on top of that ?

Thanks,
Guenter