Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751277AbdFXEpr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:45:47 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:45024 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750755AbdFXEpp (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:45:45 -0400
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:45:37 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Subject: Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS
 testing with latest kselftests - some failures]
Message-ID: <20170624044537.GD10973@kroah.com>
References: <CAO_48GFi4TRGDtqo8aPPerpQG5ei+dszrGq_0_t_8A2G-03rvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5j+e5TEEYvwh1vA8Xks1ksrukar0jaG0CU9zE2BYZAvNcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <334e6a92-2d41-c9e1-c807-19e493f1af83@kernel.org>
 <CALCETrVa0RgBcsb1_GmobjG1prFNFs0F8krHdbmiKEyhua7xkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jKDq9PmHOyooRrUXBE-iRbh4CR5B-QYVi=Gp1tOFPP_3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170623015251.GA23574@kroah.com>
 <CALCETrVHufkOBs0oZ7TUaxr48SNkSn-cWBB26cArQtEcq3431A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170624003407.GZ21846@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170624003407.GZ21846@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 844
Lines: 21

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:34:07AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> So taking the position that any kselftest script on linux-next or a future
> kernel should never break stable implicate that *any* fix going upstream for
> which there is a respective ksefltest test *must* have a stable upstream fix.

What, no!  If it's a bug, that kselftest points out, great, it's up to
stable or a vendor to backport that fix if they want it.

Again, it's just like any other test suite, look at xfstests, no one
gets mad when it adds new tests that fail on old kernels, due to bugs
there, right?

> Its not obvious to me that everyone is aware of this. What do we do about
> those cases where we *don't* want a stable fix due to the complexity?

That's up to the stable maintainers or the vendors that maintain their
own kernel trees.

thanks,

greg k-h