QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Sangeeta Jain]

Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:  
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.  
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795

Thanks,
Sangeeta

> -----Original Message-----
> From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf
> Of pokybuild@centos7-ty-3.yocto.io
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 February, 2020 3:56 PM
> To: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
> <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
> Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>;
> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org; akuster808@gmail.com;
> sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>
> Subject: [yocto] QA notification for completed autobuilder build (yocto-
> 3.0.2.rc2)
> 
> 
> A build flagged for QA (yocto-3.0.2.rc2) was completed on the autobuilder and is
> available at:
> 
> 
>     https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/releases/yocto-3.0.2.rc2
> 
> 
> Build hash information:
> 
> bitbake: 95687be83e716220eb3893b67428f97fd59fc2c5
> meta-gplv2: 0f4eecc000f66d114ad258fa31aed66afa292166
> meta-intel: b04e1edb9300a57e200a187a3255f67b50519202
> meta-mingw: 756963cc28ebc163df7d7f4b4ee004c18d3d3260
> oecore: 799b3cd1016bd765f4452a5e81ea5613c9089bce
> poky: fe857e4179355bcfb79303c16baf3ad87fca59a4
> 
> 
> 
> This is an automated message from the Yocto Project Autobuilder
> Git: git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-autobuilder2
> Email: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org
> 
> 
> 

Re: QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[akuster]

On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:  
> https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults
>
> ======= Summary ========
> No high milestone defects.  
> one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
> openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
> bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)
>
> ======= Bugs ========
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795

Thank you for logging the defects.

I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.

regards,
Armin
>
> Thanks,
> Sangeeta
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf
>> Of pokybuild@centos7-ty-3.yocto.io
>> Sent: Wednesday, 12 February, 2020 3:56 PM
>> To: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
>> Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
>> <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
>> Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>;
>> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org; akuster808@gmail.com;
>> sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>
>> Subject: [yocto] QA notification for completed autobuilder build (yocto-
>> 3.0.2.rc2)
>>
>>
>> A build flagged for QA (yocto-3.0.2.rc2) was completed on the autobuilder and is
>> available at:
>>
>>
>>     https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/releases/yocto-3.0.2.rc2
>>
>>
>> Build hash information:
>>
>> bitbake: 95687be83e716220eb3893b67428f97fd59fc2c5
>> meta-gplv2: 0f4eecc000f66d114ad258fa31aed66afa292166
>> meta-intel: b04e1edb9300a57e200a187a3255f67b50519202
>> meta-mingw: 756963cc28ebc163df7d7f4b4ee004c18d3d3260
>> oecore: 799b3cd1016bd765f4452a5e81ea5613c9089bce
>> poky: fe857e4179355bcfb79303c16baf3ad87fca59a4
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an automated message from the Yocto Project Autobuilder
>> Git: git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-autobuilder2
>> Email: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org
>>
>>
>>

Re: QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:  
> > https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults
> > 
> > ======= Summary ========
> > No high milestone defects.  
> > one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
> > 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
> > openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
> > bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)
> > 
> > ======= Bugs ========
> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
> 
> Thank you for logging the defects.
> 
> I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.

What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?

In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest
regression above is related to that or not? Any recommendation?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Khem Raj]

On 2/19/20 2:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
>>
>> On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
>>> https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults
>>>
>>> ======= Summary ========
>>> No high milestone defects.
>>> one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
>>> 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
>>> openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
>>> bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)
>>>
>>> ======= Bugs ========
>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
>>
>> Thank you for logging the defects.
>>
>> I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
> 
> What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?
> 
> In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest
> regression above is related to that or not? Any recommendation?
> 

I agree, two failures are openssh related and I think they should be 
root caused.

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Anuj Mittal]

> On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> >
> > On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
> > > https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib
> > > /tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults
> > >
> > > ======= Summary ========
> > > No high milestone defects.
> > > one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
> > > 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797) openssh ptest failed (BUG
> > > id:13796) bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)
> > >
> > > ======= Bugs ========
> > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797

From the error log, it looks like we are trying to install 7.67 while zeus has 7.66 so it errors out. I am guessing that curl wasn't built in a clean build directory so the correct version of curl is deployed. Can this test be re-run please?

> > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796

This needs:

https://github.com/openssh/openssh-portable/commit/ff31f15773ee173502eec4d7861ec56f26bba381

> > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795

Was because of the bash CVE patch.

> >
> > Thank you for logging the defects.
> >
> > I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
> 
> What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?
> 
> In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest regression above
> is related to that or not? Any recommendation?

Looks like it's related but I don't think the impact is much. The test is failing because the line number that is expected to fail changed (because of the lines being added in the test). So we should be okay in my opinion.

Thanks,

Anuj

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Sangeeta Jain]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 20 February, 2020 11:35 AM
> To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; akuster808
> <akuster808@gmail.com>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>;
> yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
> <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
> Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com;
> Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)
> 
> > On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
> > > > https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contr
> > > > ib
> > > > /tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults
> > > >
> > > > ======= Summary ========
> > > > No high milestone defects.
> > > > one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
> > > > 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797) openssh ptest failed (BUG
> > > > id:13796) bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)
> > > >
> > > > ======= Bugs ========
> > > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
> 
> From the error log, it looks like we are trying to install 7.67 while zeus has 7.66
> so it errors out. I am guessing that curl wasn't built in a clean build directory so
> the correct version of curl is deployed. Can this test be re-run please?
Re-run the test in new build directory and after having 'bitbake curl'.
It is passing now. Updating bug in Bugzila.

> 
> > > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
> 
> This needs:
> 
> https://github.com/openssh/openssh-
> portable/commit/ff31f15773ee173502eec4d7861ec56f26bba381
> 
> > > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
> 
> Was because of the bash CVE patch.
> 
> > >
> > > Thank you for logging the defects.
> > >
> > > I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
> >
> > What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?
> >
> > In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest
> > regression above is related to that or not? Any recommendation?
> 
> Looks like it's related but I don't think the impact is much. The test is failing
> because the line number that is expected to fail changed (because of the lines
> being added in the test). So we should be okay in my opinion.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anuj

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Richard Purdie]

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:

* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release

We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.

We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
results.

Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
for everyone?

Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
figure that out.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Armin Kuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]



On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
> that:
>
> * The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
> * Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
> doesn't affect release
> * The bash issue does affect release
>
> We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
> This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
> which merged.
>
> We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
> results.
>
> Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
> email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
> for everyone?
Works for me.
>
> Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
> figure that out.

List them as Known issues?

- armin
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1794 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Sangeeta Jain]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1797 bytes --]



From: akuster <akuster@mvista.com>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 7:01 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)


On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed

that:



* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release

* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it

doesn't affect release

* The bash issue does affect release



We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.

This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing

which merged.



We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test

results.





Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3

email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works

for everyone?
Works for me.


Sound good from QA perspective. Verifying automated test results and ptest results should be good.






Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to

figure that out.

List them as Known issues?
Release should be done on rc3. Status of bugs can be updated in ‘header-intel.txt’. Just my thoughts!


- armin






Cheers,



Richard








[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6155 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[akuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2268 bytes --]

Jain,

On 2/20/20 5:57 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*akuster <akuster@mvista.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, 21 February, 2020 7:01 AM
> *To:* Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; Jain,
> Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj
> <anuj.mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>;
> yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
> *Cc:* otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
> <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>;
> Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>;
> sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Tummalapalli, Vineela
> <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>
>     I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
>
>     that:
>
>      
>
>     * The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
>
>     * Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
>
>     doesn't affect release
>
>     * The bash issue does affect release
>
>      
>
>     We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
>
>     This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
>
>     which merged.
>
>      
>
>     We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
>
>     results.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
>
>     email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
>
>     for everyone?
>
> Works for me.
>
> Sound good from QA perspective. Verifying automated test results and
> ptest results should be good.

Zeus-rc3 finished. the QA email failed to send.

- armin
>
>  
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
>
>     figure that out.
>
>
> List them as Known issues?
>
> Release should be done on rc3. Status of bugs can be updated in
> ‘header-intel.txt’. Just my thoughts!
>
>
>
> - armin
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Cheers,
>
>      
>
>     Richard
>
>      
>
>
>
>     
>
>  
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8899 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Sangeeta Jain]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3225 bytes --]

Hi Armin,

Thanks for informing. I didn’t receive any mail for zeus-rc3.
As agreed earlier, QA team is not running test cycle for zeus-rc3.
I have verified ptest results for rc3, “bash.run-glob-test” is passing.
Also, no new ptest failures in rc3.

Thanks,
Sangeeta



From: akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 11:38 PM
To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

Jain,
On 2/20/20 5:57 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:


From: akuster <akuster@mvista.com><mailto:akuster@mvista.com>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 7:01 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org><mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com><mailto:sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com><mailto:anuj.mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com><mailto:akuster808@gmail.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org<mailto:yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org>
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br<mailto:otavio@ossystems.com.br>; yi.zhao@windriver.com<mailto:yi.zhao@windriver.com>; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com><mailto:apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com><mailto:ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com><mailto:aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com<mailto:sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com>; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com><mailto:vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)


On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed

that:



* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release

* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it

doesn't affect release

* The bash issue does affect release



We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.

This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing

which merged.



We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test

results.





Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3

email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works

for everyone?
Works for me.



Sound good from QA perspective. Verifying automated test results and ptest results should be good.

Zeus-rc3 finished. the QA email failed to send.

- armin







Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to

figure that out.

List them as Known issues?
Release should be done on rc3. Status of bugs can be updated in ‘header-intel.txt’. Just my thoughts!


- armin







Cheers,



Richard










[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9801 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:44:24PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>...
> This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
> which merged.
>...

I would consider this too risky for a last-minute addition
since it is a non-urgent optimization and not a regression fix.

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard

cu
Adrian

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 10:03 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:44:24PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > ...
> > This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during
> > parsing
> > which merged.
> > ...
> 
> I would consider this too risky for a last-minute addition
> since it is a non-urgent optimization and not a regression fix.

It can be argued its a bug fix which lets things work which otherwise
bring machines to a halt with swap/OOM conditions, its a pretty serious
memory usage leak (latest report says it reduces a 45GB memory use to
4.5GB on a real workload).

Speaking as someone who knows the code well and has an idea of the
impact of the change, I believe it to be safe. It was already also
merged with 3.0.3 in mind and hasn't caused any issues in master.

Excluding it from the respin would be harder and more disruptive than
not at this point due to the change to 3.0.3 so its been included.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Vineela]

Hello Richard,

-----Original Message-----
From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj <Anuj.Mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:

* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release

We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing which merged.

We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test results.

Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3 email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works for everyone?

Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to figure that out.

[Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not 3.0.2.rc2 as we see issues with that. Am I correct?
If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things like staging 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and get it reviewed once I get the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA team.

Thanks,
Vineela

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 17:26 +0000, Tummalapalli, Vineela wrote:
> [Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not
> 3.0.2.rc2 as we see issues with that. Am I correct?
> If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things
> like staging 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and
> get it reviewed once I get the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA
> team.

Yes, however the QA team aren't going to rerun all the tests, only
check the issue which regressed is fixed.

A new build did complete but a QA email wasn't sent out. Armin started
that build so I'm not sure whether that was the plan or not (the build
wasn't configured to). Armin?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[akuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 962 bytes --]



On 2/21/20 9:38 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 17:26 +0000, Tummalapalli, Vineela wrote:
>> [Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not
>> 3.0.2.rc2 as we see issues with that. Am I correct?
>> If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things
>> like staging 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and
>> get it reviewed once I get the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA
>> team.
> Yes, however the QA team aren't going to rerun all the tests, only
> check the issue which regressed is fixed.
>
> A new build did complete but a QA email wasn't sent out. Armin started
> that build so I'm not sure whether that was the plan or not (the build
> wasn't configured to). Armin?
I did't think a full QA round was needed. Bash ptest just needs to be
double checked.

openssh has a fix but will be in the next dot release.

- armin
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1803 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

[Sangeeta Jain]

Hi Vineela,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 22 February, 2020 1:27 AM
> To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; Jain, Sangeeta
> <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com>; akuster808
> <akuster808@gmail.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
> <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
> Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf
> Of Richard Purdie
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:44 PM
> To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj
> <Anuj.Mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>;
> yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
> <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
> Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com;
> Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)
> 
> I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
> that:
> 
> * The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
> * Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it doesn't
> affect release
> * The bash issue does affect release
> 
> We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
> This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing which
> merged.
> 
> We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test results.
> 
> Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3 email but
> we're just expecting to check the test results if that works for everyone?
> 
> Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to figure that
> out.
> 
> [Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not 3.0.2.rc2 as
> we see issues with that. Am I correct?
> If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things like staging
> 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and get it reviewed once I get
> the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA team.

As agreed earlier, QA team will not be running QA cycle for 3.0.2.rc3.
You may proceed for release once Richard/Armin confirm verification of automated test results.

Thanks,
Sangeeta

> 
> Thanks,
> Vineela
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard