linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] [PATCH 00/36] Remove UCLINUX from LTP

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: <20240103083905.GA1073466@pevik>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 09:39:05 +0100
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@...aro.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>, ltp@...ts.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 00/36] Remove UCLINUX from LTP

Hi Cyril,

> Hi!
> > > UCLINUX is broken in LTP and nobody really cares. Actually I dare to
> > > say UCLINUX is dead. Therefore I prepared patchset to remove UCLINUX
> > > from LTP. We have been actively removing UCLINUX from LTP during rewrite
> > > tests to new LTP API. This removes the rest from the old tests (which
> > > will be sooner or later rewritten to new API).

> > > Because the patchset is quite big, I did not want to send it to mailing
> > > lists (but I can do it if you want).

> > I agree that this should be done, but I'm not sure if we want to get
> > this in before the January release. I guess that such change would be
> > safer to merge just after the release so that we have a few months to
> > actually catch possible problems.

> Looking at the actuall changes it does not look awfuly complex, so maybe
> we can try to merge it before the pre-release testing and hopefully
> things will not break badly.

Thanks for a quick look. Both ways would work for me, depends on you and others.
Obviously fewer rebasing is better :).

Kind regards,
Petr