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

Message-ID: <0c445eca-4f15-f6a1-f098-64fe2c7d3c3a@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:28:08 -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

Hi Paul,

On 9/7/21 8:18 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Guenter,
> 
> 
> Am 07.09.21 um 16:47 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 03:50:39PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> 
>>> Am 07.09.21 um 14:53 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sorry for being blind. Under *qemu-tests*, looking at build #1831 [1],
>>> clicking on *stdio* [2] under *Steps and Logfiles*, I do not see any Linux
>>> logs.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Just to avoid misunderstandings, it’s about the Linux run-time logs.
>>
>> Run-time logs are only provided if there are errors or runtime issues
>> (crashes, warning tracebacks, or test failures).
> 
> Could this be changed to always publish them? Or is that too demanding on storage?
> 

It isn't a matter of storage, but of noise. It is mostly me looking at the data,
and I really don't want to see logs if nothing interesting is there. With 450+
builds per release I'd drown in noise otherwise. Sure, a large part of that
is a UI issue, but that is where systems like kernelci come in. If I ever
find the time to do it, I might report build and runtime results/logs to kernelci.
But that is a big IF.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> How can I find that report?
>>>
>> I just searched for the SHA.
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg101721.html
> 
> Alright, that is a build time thing. I am looking for runtime things.
> 

If there is nothing in my reports, you'd probably not find what you
are looking for (it would be reported if it results in a backtrace).

Guenter