linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/191] 5.10.201-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: <ZVbIoqXjfn7V1NtT@codewreck.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:57:54 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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 5.10 000/191] 5.10.201-rc1 review

Guenter Roeck wrote on Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 05:13:39PM -0800:
> Failed builds:
> 	arm:allmodconfig
> 	arm64:allmodconfig
> 	i386:tools/perf
> 	x86_64:tools/perf

> This is with v5.10.200-192-g550b7e1fee20. I am a bit puzzled why others
> don't seem to see those problems.

The perf problem was reported by Florian Fainelli, but my current test
build does not include userspace tools as we're not shipping them (and
would rely on $distro packages when I need perf as a user rather than
building it).

Likewise, it looks like neither Linaro nor me build the qcom driver...
I'm building kernels that have been trimmed down for our boards (with
that exact config we're shipping and providing for our customers), and
arm* drivers are especially fractured so it's a bit misleading to see
"arm64 pass", that's just the tip of the actual setup tested.

(Anyway, the main reason for me is mostly that $job is a small company
that cannot afford extensive upstream testing, so I just don't have the
time to do extended tests -- for the same reason we're only supporting
the 5.10 tree so I'm focusing my limited time on just this branch, even
if I'd love to do more.
I'm just taking the stance that some test is better than no test and
report back things we'd need to test before shipping customers a few
weeks later anyway -- thank you for covering more!)

-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus