=== amitk_ is now known as amitk [09:06] cking: what kind of regression test should I do when submit SRU patch? [09:07] AceLan, for the "regression potential" part of a SRU, I just want to see a description of where you think regressions could possibly occur. For fixes such as the PCI power savings, it would be useful to check this on a range of H/W just to see if it works on other devices apart from the ones you are targetting for the fix [09:10] cking: got it [09:11] cking: about his one "Fix can't disable USB port issue", it's a quirk for specific id, do I need to test it on other machine? [09:11] AceLan, the more a patch changes in code that potentially is run on a lot of HW, the more we get worried. Sorry for rejecting that one request for the second time, but it just feels like a lot of potential to go wrong [09:12] AceLan, I'm very anal about checking stuff, so some checking on other H/W when it comes to some types of fixes is always useful, even the simplest of fixes can sometimes catch one out [09:13] it's called the "can I sleep OK overnight with this fix" sanity check ;-) [09:19] smb: thanks for the comment, I'll try to gather more machines for testing [09:20] AceLan, yw, and again sorry for being a pain. But we try to avoid pain on our side ;) [09:30] well, pain on the user's side too if it goes bad [09:34] in the ADT tests I have [09:34] 12:18:01 ERROR| [stderr] FAIL: test_061_guard_page (__main__.KernelSecurityTest) [09:34] 12:18:01 ERROR| [stderr] Userspace stack guard page exists (CVE-2010-2240) [09:34] failing for kernel, on artful. [09:34] is this test downloaded by autopkgtest from not the source package? [09:34] because a package should be able to pass it's autopkgtest. And I don't see how that test is relevant for src:linux triggered by systemd. [09:35] does it mean artful started to be vulnerable to CVE-2010-2240 ? [09:43] xnox, probably rather the test being confused by the new changes due to CVE-2017-1000364 and needing updates. I believe artful picked up the upstream commits which had some compat issues / regressions in corner cases [09:44] smb, horum. I am no kernel person and the ADT failure looks scary to the uninitiated. Can the ADT test please be "fixed" to e.g. expectfail / skip that test for now, if it is not in fact regressing? [09:45] but it seems that update to systemd is not causing this kernel regression. [09:46] xnox, no don't think so to the latter. and the former was was afaik already redirected at the sec team [11:11] Hi, anyone know the right channel I need to head to if I need NIC internals information? [11:11] I'm more interested in the datasheet/electronic aspect of it. [11:11] My goal is to write a driver. [11:11] I am fairly familiar with the os/kernel interfacing part. [13:34] smb, hm.... does this mean kernel security update was released without running adt test? [13:34] (one can run adt test with kvm and cloud image using embargoed / locally built packages) [13:39] xnox, you do realize that the adt test is failing for artful which has a different patch than the rest? [13:41] smb, yes I do. [13:41] smb, and my understanding was that linux kernel is built in ppa, with adt tests run, before it is copied into artful-proposed and starts blocking migrations of all packages. [13:41] e.g. we are failing to migrate gcc, systemd, because of the failing adt test. [13:43] smb, or e.g. copy linux from ppa to silo, and then to the archive. [13:43] xnox, this was an embargoed cve all things are different [13:43] xnox, this is a devel kernel which is built into proposed like any other package [13:43] to have a full run of adt tests report, which is automated for the silo ppas. [13:43] xnox, and regardless the one which is affecting your adt tests is not the things we released via security [13:43] smb, it was built in the PPA for Canonical Kernel team and then copied into artful-proposed. [13:44] xnox, why are we so caring about this one failure, we have adt failures which block things all the time [13:44] apw, ok. [13:44] xnox, we have a system to cope with it [13:45] sure. but things that do clog up -proposed are either resolved quickly or removed from proposed. [13:45] do we need a broken kernel in artful-proposed, if it is not passing adt tests? [13:45] what is it blocking whihc is such a huge pressure ? [13:45] it's not like it will magically pass, due to changes needed in either kernel or the test-suite? thus that upload is toast, no? [13:45] if you say gcc i will punch you on the nose [13:45] it's blocking automated migration. [13:45] systemd [13:46] gcc for doko; systemd for me. As usual. [13:46] ok so we can hint systemd if that is the only failure [13:46] that is why we have hints [13:46] apw, but hinting requires humans. [13:46] i'd rather just remove the src:linux from artful-proposed. [13:46] rather than badtesting src:linux. [13:46] and you will expect me to not do the same for systemd if it fails for an instant right ? [13:47] and that does not require a human? [13:47] the test is good; and that src:linux is genuenly toast, no? [13:47] smb, the same humans indeed [13:48] apw, i expect an upload to fix the systemd in proposed or remove the offending systemd in proposed. [13:48] xnox, indeed, and we are working on that right now [13:48] obviously we cannot remove src:linux or src:systemd from artful-release. [13:49] hm it is very odd. [13:49] what is very odd [13:49] i see test results for 6.11 and 7.12, but not 8.13 and release pocket has 4.10.0-22.24 [13:49] e.g. systemd migration should be tested against 4.10, not 4.11 [13:50] xnox, yes, if it is not that is a failure in adt [13:50] or some muppet ran all-proposed run [13:51] we should remove that option [13:51] kernel adt tests are odd; they mostly test the new kernel; and very little test of changed userspace. [13:52] apw, but do you run adt tests of linux kernel against the new kernel after it is built in the kernel PPA before copying into the devel-proposed? [13:53] xnox, normally yes, unsure if that was done for this one as this was a fix for an emergency CVE [13:53] because 5.10, 6.11, 7.12, 8.13 of the 4.11 are all failing [13:53] xnox, but as the only people who should be afected are us [13:53] true. [13:53] xnox, as they are only in -proposed and your testing is against -release [13:53] xnox, so perhaps we need to work out how you got tests against the -proposed version at all [13:54] yes. [13:55] meanwhile i'm doing self service request to rerun systemd->linux against release linux, rather than proposed linux. === JanC_ is now known as JanC === Ivanovik is now known as John___