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: <45f36bbd-f65a-4d92-aeca-52ddad835cd4@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:32:50 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: 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 10/23/24 10:20, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> To put it this way. The bugs I'm fixing was for code in linux-next
> where the bugs were never found. They only appeared when they went into
> Linus's tree. So why put the fixes in linux-next, if it didn't catch
> the bugs I fixed in the first place?

The fix might be in a different part of the code, one that's stressed by
-next testing even if the code with the original bug wasn't. So I don't
think you can always assume that -next not catching the original bug means
it can't catch a bug in the fix?