09:00:01 <masashi910> #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting
09:00:01 <brlogger> Meeting started Thu Dec  3 09:00:01 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is masashi910. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
09:00:01 <brlogger> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
09:00:01 <brlogger> The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting'
09:00:11 <masashi910> #topic rollcall
09:00:13 <masashi910> please say hi if you're around
09:00:20 <sudip> hi
09:00:21 <pave1> hi
09:00:21 <wens> hi
09:00:28 <patersonc> hi
09:00:57 <masashi910> Let's get started.
09:01:02 <masashi910> #topic AI review
09:01:10 <masashi910> 1. Combine root filesystem with kselftest binary - iwamatsu
09:01:19 <masashi910> Iwamatsu-san, are you around?
09:02:01 <masashi910> Let's come back when he arrives.
09:02:24 <masashi910> Our AI is only this. So let's move on.
09:02:25 <masashi910> #topic Kernel maintenance updates
09:02:34 <pave1> I have reviewed 4.19.161
09:03:08 <wens> I'm still midway through my report. We got quite a few disclosures / CVE assignments from Google.
09:03:21 <wens> Nine new issues, though all are fixed or have fixes queued up.
09:04:27 <masashi910> pave1, wens: Thanks for your works. Wens-san, I am looking forward to your report. :)
09:04:40 <masashi910> any other topics?
09:05:06 <masashi910> 3
09:05:09 <masashi910> 2
09:05:14 <masashi910> 1
09:05:16 <masashi910> #topic Kernel testing
09:05:22 <patersonc> Hello
09:05:37 <patersonc> The security has raised a point about bug tracking
09:06:00 <patersonc> Am I right in thinking that we don't have a formalised system in place for tracking issues found in the CIP Kernel?
09:07:32 <masashi910> pave1, wens: If you find any issues, are you directly sending emails to kernel mailing list?
09:07:49 <pave1> masashi: Yes, that's the usual way to do it in kernel.
09:08:18 <patersonc> Security working group: Do we need to track issues more formally?
09:08:23 <masashi910> Pavel-san, thanks.
09:08:42 <pave1> And as we have mainline-first policy, the bugs we have are in mainline, too...
09:08:51 <wens> AFAIK for build breakage the bots just send emails to the list and the person that sent out the broken patch
09:09:47 <sudip> iiuc, CIP kernel also has few backported drivers which are not in LTS, so for them you will need to test with mainline to verify the bug exists there
09:10:36 <yoshidak[m]> patersonc: I think it's okay to reuse upstream tracks.
09:11:11 <patersonc> Okay
09:12:58 <masashi910> Chris-san sent out the following email.
09:12:58 <patersonc> I don't have anything else this week
09:13:06 <masashi910> https://lore.kernel.org/cip-dev/OSAPR01MB23853004B735A607C4BEE0C5B7F40@OSAPR01MB2385.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com/
09:13:22 <patersonc> Oh yea, I forgot about that. Thanks masashi910:
09:13:55 <masashi910> So, currently such failures are disappeared?
09:13:58 <pave1> It seems better now. Not sure what changed.
09:14:26 <pave1> (But we really should not be doing full clones from gitlab. That is uncool.)
09:14:31 <masashi910> Great!
09:14:51 <patersonc> pave1:  fetch depth is set to 10
09:15:25 <pave1> patersonc: But that's still pulling whole tree, say 1GB for each test, right?
09:16:12 <patersonc> I can't remember if it's just fetching a single branch or not
09:16:33 <pave1> Even single branch of kernel is ~1GB, right?
09:17:14 <patersonc> Yea, but surely we need everything so we can compile the Kernel?
09:17:28 <pave1> Yeah, but we should not really pull it from the gitlab.
09:18:03 <sudip> just for build testing fetch depth of 1 should be OK.
09:18:11 <patersonc> I could include the CIP repo in the docker container, but then we'd need to include the entire repo, and we'd just be pulling a large container for every build job instead
09:18:47 <pave1> patersonc: Well, it would be our infrastructure that would take the load, not gitlab's, so I believe that would be improvement.
09:19:12 <masashi910> patersonc, pave1, sudip: if needed, shall we follow up this topic after the meeting?
09:19:19 <patersonc> Yes, but the docker containers are hosted in GitLab as well ;)
09:19:24 <patersonc> masashi910: Sure
09:19:45 <masashi910> patersonc: Thanks for your works!
09:19:52 <masashi910> Are there any other topics?
09:20:09 <masashi910> 3
09:20:12 <masashi910> 2
09:20:16 <masashi910> 1
09:20:19 <masashi910> #topic CIP Security
09:20:27 <yoshidak[m]> hello
09:20:42 <yoshidak[m]> We received the report of the gap assessment for IEC 62443-4-2 from Exida today.
09:21:13 <yoshidak[m]> The contract will be over at the end of this month, so we'll hold a meeting with Exida and have to ask queries about contents of that report in this month.
09:21:44 <yoshidak[m]> In this year, we have to focus this work, so another work, i.e. identify the requirements of development process to other working groups, will be carried over to next year.
09:22:23 <yoshidak[m]> BTW, regarding development process, we interviewed Chris to sort out the current environment of testing last week.
09:22:28 <yoshidak[m]> Thank you Chris.
09:22:44 <yoshidak[m]> That's all from me this week. thanks.
09:22:51 <masashi910> yoshidak[m]: Thanks for your works!
09:22:59 <masashi910> are there any queries?
09:23:14 <masashi910> 3
09:23:19 <masashi910> 2
09:23:22 <masashi910> 1
09:23:25 <masashi910> #topic AOB
09:23:31 <masashi910> Are there any business to discuss?
09:24:00 <masashi910> If there are no topics, then, let's close the meeting.
09:24:05 <masashi910> #endmeeting