> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <openembedded-
> [email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark Hatle
> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 6:34 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Openembedded-architecture] Stable version upgrades on OE stable
> branches
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/27/26 11:42 AM, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-05-27 at 14:16 +0000, Daniel Turull wrote:
> >> To help with the updates, allowing ptest to be backported could also
> >> help on finding issues in the recipe updates or CVE backporting.
> >
> > ptests are not good candidates for backports. We have huge amounts of
> > problems with them in master, let alone the stable backports. Very few
> > actually dive in and try and fix the issues in master. The new patches
> > often seem to be AI generated and contain questionable cod. All my
> > experience says backporting them is a really bad idea.
> >
> > Sorry, but definitely no from me.
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.  I had missed this email.
> 
> I agree with Richard.  Test cases need to actually test "something".  Just
> backporting ptests for the sake of more tests doesn't help anyone.  It doesn't
> test regressions, it doesn't test functionality, and just adds noise to the
> reports.  (More positive, more negatives and more skips suddenly appear.)
> 
> I'm all in favor of adding ptests when something else has been added to a 
> stable
> version.  I.e. a CVE is fixed in a recipe.  If the CVE behavior can be checked
> for in a ptest, I would be in favor of adding that ptest and backporting it
> where appropriate.  (But just the ONE test.)

I must disagree here.

The main problem with backporting CVEs to recipes without ptest is fact that 
it's impossible to verify the patch sideeffects.
Especially for a 3-4 year old component version, where there are several 
cherry-pick conflicts and some code paths are rewritten meanwhile.
Testing that CVE patch fixes a CVE is nice (assuming that exploit is at 
publicly available), however testing that nothing else got broken is crucial 
here.

I certainly understand that tests can be unstable, however that can be solved 
be selectively skipping single testcases.
Personally, I'd love to see all ptests being backported as the confidence on 
CVE patches would be significantly boosted.

Peter

> 
> --Mark
> 
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#2365): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2365
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119437109/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  • [Openembedded-architecture] ... Chen Qi via lists.openembedded.org
    • Re: [Openembedded-archi... Daniel Turull via lists.openembedded.org
      • Re: [Openembedded-a... Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
        • Re: [Openembedd... Mark Hatle
          • Re: [Openem... Peter Marko via lists.openembedded.org
            • Re: [O... Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org
              • Re... Peter Marko via lists.openembedded.org
                • ... Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org
                • ... Peter Kjellerstedt via lists.openembedded.org
                • ... Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
            • Re: [O... Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
              • Re... Daniel Turull via lists.openembedded.org
                • ... Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
                • ... Daniel Turull via lists.openembedded.org
                • ... David Nyström

Reply via email to