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: <Zxr9bJu_VxzYyhuU@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:07:40 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	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 Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 09:17:28PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Remember, this is talking about fixes after -rc1 not for things heading
> to the merge window. I find linux-next extremely useful for that work.
> But for fixes, what benefit is it to push to linux-next before sending
> to Linus a fix that adds a missing mutex_unlock() in the error path?

Yeah, sorry I did not get that context, in that case think the value is
more immediate than a round trip through 0-day given linus tree has
more immediacy for testing and value for fixes.

  Luis