linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Fixes to failing tests

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:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:49:14 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maciej Wieczór-Retman 
        <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...fujitsu.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Fixes to failing tests



On 10/2/2023 4:31 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 
>> Fix four issues with resctrl selftests.
>>
>> The signal handling fix became necessary after the mount/umount fixes
>> and the uninitialized member bug was discovered during the review.
>>
>> The other two came up when I ran resctrl selftests across the server
>> fleet in our lab to validate the upcoming CAT test rewrite (the rewrite
>> is not part of this series).
>>
>> These are developed and should apply cleanly at least on top the
>> benchmark cleanup series (might apply cleanly also w/o the benchmark
>> series, I didn't test).
> 
> LKP seems to no longer happy to apply this cleanly without the benchmark 
> rework series as the signal handling fix got now a bigger footprint 
> (maybe LKP didn't build v3 at all as the changes from v3->v4 were really 
> small and I did not get error out of v3).
> 
> Shuah, would you want me to reorganize this such that it goes in before 
> the benchmark series? In any case, I'll wait until Reinette has had time 
> to look at the first patch if I'm to send the series reordered.

That sounds unnecessary to me because I assume that doing such reorganization
would require a new version of the benchmark series [1] that has been ready for
a while now.

Both series look good to me. I just added my "Reviewed-by" to the first patch of
this series and it (this series) applies cleanly on top of the benchmark series.

Reinette

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230904095339.11321-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com/