linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/149] 6.1.46-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: <ba8db9d2-2bf3-4b23-97c1-1db07f93644c@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:33:42 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/149] 6.1.46-rc1 review

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 11:17:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.46 release.
> There are 149 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 Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:16:53 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

Build results:
	total: 157 pass: 157 fail: 0
Qemu test results:
	total: 521 pass: 519 fail: 2
Failed tests:
	arm:fuji-bmc:aspeed_g5_defconfig:notests:mem1G:mtd128,0,8,1:net,nic:aspeed-bmc-facebook-fuji:rootfs
	arm:bletchley-bmc,fmc-model=mt25qu02g,spi-model=mt25qu02g:aspeed_g5_defconfig:notests:mem1G:mtd256:net,nic:aspeed-bmc-facebook-bletchley:rootfs

As already reported, the failing tests are crashing in f2fs code.
This bears the questions 1) should I stop testing f2fs and 2),
would it make sense to mark f2fs as broken in v6.1.y ?

It doesn't seem to make sense to keep testing code which is known
to be broken.

Thanks,
Guenter