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: <ZxiOjBRdO6EMAY4H@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:50:04 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...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 Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:37:38AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> We could add a report for the above, but:
> 
> 1. Linus consistently pulls patches that haven't seen the light of day.
> 2. Linus explicitly objected to making a linux-next a must have.
> 
> So unless these results would be actually used, what's the point in
> writing all of that?

Yes, without Linus caring we're not going to get our process worked out.
Not sure how a tree that probably won't have much better latency than
linux-next is going to fix that, though.