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: <826b241f-3d93-4585-bd22-90cff75f7bb0@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:15:10 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
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

Hi,

On 11/16/23 17:57, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> 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!)
> 

Just to clarify, I wasn't assuming or expecting that _everyone_ would report
those errors. I was just puzzled that I had not seen _any_ reports, especially
since arm:allmodconfig and arm64:allmodconfig both failed to build for me
(and I had somehow missed Florian's perf report).

Thanks,
Guenter