[09:06] <AceLan> cking: what kind of regression test should I do when submit SRU patch?
[09:07] <cking> 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] <AceLan> cking: got it
[09:11] <AceLan> 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] <smb> 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] <cking> 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] <cking> it's called the "can I sleep OK overnight with this fix" sanity check ;-)
[09:19] <AceLan> smb: thanks for the comment, I'll try to gather more machines for testing
[09:20] <smb> AceLan, yw, and again sorry for being a pain. But we try to avoid pain on our side ;)
[09:30] <cking> well, pain on the user's side too if it goes bad
[09:34] <xnox> in the ADT tests I have
[09:34] <xnox> 12:18:01 ERROR| [stderr] FAIL: test_061_guard_page (__main__.KernelSecurityTest)
[09:34] <xnox> 12:18:01 ERROR| [stderr] Userspace stack guard page exists (CVE-2010-2240)
[09:34] <xnox> failing for kernel, on artful.
[09:34] <xnox> is this test downloaded by autopkgtest from not the source package?
[09:34] <xnox> 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] <xnox> does it mean artful started to be vulnerable to CVE-2010-2240 ?
[09:43] <smb> 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] <xnox> 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] <xnox> but it seems that update to systemd is not causing this kernel regression.
[09:46] <smb> xnox, no don't think so to the latter. and the former was was afaik already redirected at the sec team 
[11:11] <Ivanovik> Hi, anyone know the right channel I need to head to if I need NIC internals information?
[11:11] <Ivanovik> I'm more interested in the datasheet/electronic aspect of it.
[11:11] <Ivanovik> My goal is to write a driver.
[11:11] <Ivanovik> I am fairly familiar with the os/kernel interfacing part.
[13:34] <xnox> smb, hm.... does this mean kernel security update was released without running adt test?
[13:34] <xnox> (one can run adt test with kvm and cloud image using embargoed / locally built packages)
[13:39] <smb> xnox, you do realize that the adt test is failing for artful which has a different patch than the rest?
[13:41] <xnox> smb, yes I do.
[13:41] <xnox> 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] <xnox> e.g. we are failing to migrate gcc, systemd, because of the failing adt test.
[13:43] <xnox> smb, or e.g. copy linux from ppa to silo, and then to the archive.
[13:43] <apw> xnox, this was an embargoed cve all things are different
[13:43] <smb> xnox, this is a devel kernel which is built into proposed like any other package
[13:43] <xnox> to have a full run of adt tests report, which is automated for the silo ppas.
[13:43] <apw> xnox, and regardless the one which is affecting your adt tests is not the things we released via security
[13:43] <xnox> smb, it was built in the PPA for Canonical Kernel team and then copied into artful-proposed.
[13:44] <apw> xnox, why are we so caring about this one failure, we have adt failures which block things all the time
[13:44] <xnox> apw, ok.
[13:44] <apw> xnox, we have a system to cope with it
[13:45] <xnox> sure. but things that do clog up -proposed are either resolved quickly or removed from proposed.
[13:45] <xnox> do we need a broken kernel in artful-proposed, if it is not passing adt tests?
[13:45] <apw> what is it blocking whihc is such a huge pressure ?
[13:45] <xnox> 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] <apw> if you say gcc i will punch you on the nose
[13:45] <xnox> it's blocking automated migration.
[13:45] <xnox> systemd
[13:46] <xnox> gcc for doko; systemd for me. As usual.
[13:46] <apw> ok so we can hint systemd if that is the only failure
[13:46] <apw> that is why we have hints
[13:46] <xnox> apw, but hinting requires humans.
[13:46] <xnox> i'd rather just remove the src:linux from artful-proposed.
[13:46] <xnox> rather than badtesting src:linux.
[13:46] <apw> and you will expect me to not do the same for systemd if it fails for an instant right ?
[13:47] <smb> and that does not require a human?
[13:47] <xnox> the test is good; and that src:linux is genuenly toast, no?
[13:47] <apw> smb, the same humans indeed
[13:48] <xnox> apw, i expect an upload to fix the systemd in proposed or remove the offending systemd in proposed.
[13:48] <apw> xnox, indeed, and we are working on that right now
[13:48] <xnox> obviously we cannot remove src:linux or src:systemd from artful-release.
[13:49] <xnox> hm it is very odd.
[13:49] <apw> what is very odd
[13:49] <xnox> 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] <xnox> e.g. systemd migration should be tested against 4.10, not 4.11
[13:50] <apw> xnox, yes, if it is not that is a failure in adt
[13:50] <apw> or some muppet ran all-proposed run
[13:51] <apw> we should remove that option
[13:51] <xnox> kernel adt tests are odd; they mostly test the new kernel; and very little test of changed userspace.
[13:52] <xnox> 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] <apw> xnox, normally yes, unsure if that was done for this one as this was a fix for an emergency CVE
[13:53] <xnox> because 5.10, 6.11, 7.12, 8.13 of the 4.11 are all failing
[13:53] <apw> xnox, but as the only people who should be afected are us
[13:53] <xnox> true.
[13:53] <apw> xnox, as they are only in -proposed and your testing is against -release
[13:53] <apw> xnox, so perhaps we need to work out how you got tests against the -proposed version at all
[13:54] <xnox> yes.
[13:55] <xnox> meanwhile i'm doing self service request to rerun systemd->linux against release linux, rather than proposed linux.