linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/306] 5.10.67-rc1 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]

Message-ID: <YUTw9oSoZB5q4+8a@debian>
Date:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:48:06 +0100
From:   Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
        patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de,
        jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/306] 5.10.67-rc1 review

Hi Greg,

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 05:55:45PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.67 release.
> There are 306 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Sat, 18 Sep 2021 15:57:06 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.

Build test:
mips (gcc version 11.1.1 20210816): 63 configs -> no new failure
arm (gcc version 11.1.1 20210816): 105 configs -> no new failure
arm64 (gcc version 11.1.1 20210816): 3 configs -> no failure
x86_64 (gcc version 10.2.1 20210110): 4 configs -> no failure

Boot test:
x86_64: Booted on my test laptop. No regression.
x86_64: Booted on qemu. No regression. [1]
arm64: Booted on rpi4b (4GB model). No regression. [2]

[1]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/145
[2]. https://openqa.qa.codethink.co.uk/tests/144


Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>

--
Regards
Sudip