linux-kernel - Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

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: <7afdd542-2427-4b90-86dd-19e3c8a96e3c@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:51:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull
 requests

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 05:19:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

[ . . . ]

> But pushing to linux-next for a day or two, what does that give me?

If the stars align, I will run some serious rcutorture on it.  Not that
the stars have been aligning much over the past few weeks because I
have been putting most of my testing effort into chasing an RCU bug.
And not that rcutorture and friends are likely to find bugs in your part
of the Linux kernel.

Nevertheless, this is one of my concerns with a separate tree.  Right now,
my testing priority is (1) RCU, (2) -next, (3) mainline.  If we add
another tree, either I choose not to test that tree on the one hand or
it detracts from my testing -next and/or mainline on the other.

							Thanx, Paul