From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Biggers Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:52:45 -0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] crypto/crypto_user01.c: new test for information leak bug In-Reply-To: <20181211191543.GA5389@rei> References: <20181211060317.18698-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20181211060317.18698-4-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20181211123251.GA27346@rei> <20181211184334.GD221175@gmail.com> <20181211191543.GA5389@rei> Message-ID: <20181211205243.GE221175@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Cyril, On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! > > No it doesn't really make sense to run a test twice, but this has two associated > > CVE numbers, resulting in two runs when tests are run by CVE number. Are you > > saying you'd prefer that it be listed under just the more recent CVE? Or are > > you saying the runtest/cve file will be going away and replaced by something > > else anyway? > > For now I would just put it under the newer CVE number. > > For a future I would like to be able to export all the metadata from the > tests to the tesrunner, so the testrunner would know, among other > things, which tests are associated with CVEs. That, in turn, would > eliminate the need to maintain various different sets of runtest files. > > But given that I just started to work on that I do not expect it to be > finished anytime soon. > > Does that sounds reasonable to you? > > Also no need to resent the patchset, I can remove the runtest entry when > applying the patch. > Yes that sounds reasonable to me, please feel free to just put it under the newer CVE number. Thanks! - Eric