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: <8734km2lt7.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:59:16 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven
 <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: 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

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:36:20 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> 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?  
>> 
>> Hmmm...
>> 
>> Your arguments sound very similar to those being used in recent
>> discussions about not posting patches for public review...
>> 
>> Please follow the process! ;-)
>
> What process?
>
...
>
> But pushing to linux-next for a day or two, what does that give me?

Several thousand build tests, across pretty much every architecture.

And a few hundred boot tests, lots virtualised, but some on real HW.

A single character typo in an #ifdef your testing doesn't cover can
break the build for lots of people ...

cheers