linux-kernel - Re: More detailed text about bisecting Linux kernel regression -- request for comments and help

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: <ZbZIQc91DRrTeMtZ@archie.me>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:27:45 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
	Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: More detailed text about bisecting Linux kernel regression --
 request for comments and help

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 06:28:52AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 28.01.24 03:18, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 01:19:16PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> .. _bisectstart_bissbs:
> >>
> >> * Start the bisection and tell Git about the versions earlier
> >> established as 'good' and 'bad'::
> >>
> >>     cd ~/linux/
> >>     git bisect start
> >>     git bisect good v6.0
> >>     git bisect bad v6.1.5
> > 
> > If stable release tag is supplied instead as "good" version instead (e.g.
> > v6.0.1), as in many regression cases, git will ask to test the merge base
> > instead, which is corresponding mainline release (in this case v6.0).
> 
> That should not happen if people follow the guide, as this is avoided by
> an earlier step:
> 
> "'"
> .. _rangecheck_bissbs:
> 
> * Determine the kernel versions considered 'good' and 'bad' throughout
> this guide:
> 
> [...]
> 
>   * Some function stopped working when updating from 6.0.11 to 6.1.4?
> Then for the time being consider 'v6.0' as the last 'good' version and
> 'v6.1.4' as the 'bad' one. Note, it is at this point an assumption that
> 6.0 is fine that will be checked later.
> 
> "'"
> 

Oops, I didn't see that context above. Thanks anyway.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)