linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/95] 5.10.200-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: <ZUn-d-s7J8cmS-em@codewreck.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2023 18:08:07 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
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, 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,
        sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
        conor@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/95] 5.10.200-rc1 review

Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 02:03:28PM +0100:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.200 release.
> There are 95 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 Wed, 08 Nov 2023 13:02:46 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.200-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.

Tested on:
- arm i.MX6ULL (Armadillo 640)
- arm64 i.MX8MP (Armadillo G4)

No obvious regression in dmesg or basic tests:
Tested-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>

By the way, I wanted to start semi-automatize this (for 5.10
specifically since that's the kernel we're based on) and started
watching the linux-stable-rc.git's linux-5.10.y branch, specifically the
rev in this command:

  git ls-remote git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git refs/heads/linux-5.10.y

And there were two different "Linux 5.10.200-rc1" commits on the 1st,
3rd before the final rev on the 6th (this mail) as I assume you were
preparing this branch (and it's perfectly fine!)
Is there anything appropriate to watch instead, or should I setup mail
filters to see the announce mail instead of trying to second-guess the
git repo?

While I'm asking questions, I'm also comparing the dmesg output from one
version to the next by hand (as ordering etc changes a bit from one run
to the next it's a bit hard to automate reliably), if you're aware of a
fuzzy-diff for dmesg outputs or should I just kludge that in a corner?
(Should have noticed the MMC quirk regression[1] in 5.10.199 if I had been
doing that properly last time... It's too easy to miss when a line just
disappears and there's no error
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231103004220.1666641-1-asmadeus@codewreck.org/
(not yet in master))

-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus