CIP Technical Steering Committee Meeting

Date: 19 June, 2018

Location: Tokyo conference center Ariake

TSC members

• Attendees
  • Agustin Benito Bethencourt (Codethink) (Representative)
  • Masashi Kudo (Cybertrust)
  • Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (Cybertrust) (Representative)
  • Hiroshi Mine (Hitachi)
  • Hidehiro Kawai (Hitachi) (Representative) (Voting)
  • SZ Lin (MOXA) (Representative) (joined via phone)
  • Masato Minda (Plat’Home) (Representative)
  • Takehisa Katayama (Renesas) (Voting)
  • Chris Paterson (Renesas)
  • Wolfgang Mauerer (Siemens) (Representative) (Voting)
  • Loc (Toshiba Vietnam)
  • Daniel Sangorrin (Toshiba)
  • Yoshi Kobayashi (Toshiba) (Representative) (Voting) - Chair
  • Noriaki Fukuyasu (The Linux Foundation)

• (Topic to be decided) Which direction will we go?
  • Decision: CIP TSC recommend to funding Reproducible Builds.
  • No abstains and no opposition. Consensus made. The Board will decide how it should be funded and what amount.

• Member of Linux kernel security team
• Stable kernel team
• Familiar with the Kernel mainline process.
• Not required to be familiar with the 4.4-stable process, although it is desired he/she has previous experience backporting features/patches.
  • To decide which feature can be backported
• Experience in backporting patches

• Expected workload for mentor
  • CIP kernel mentor review review results from CIP kernel maintenance team
  • (Q) Does mentor need to manage CIP kernel tree ?
    • No. If CIP have a mentor (not maintainer), CIP kernel team manage a CIP kernel tree.
• When distributing patches for stable, the mentor give some hints to review the patches.
  • URLs, etc..
• Provides guidance to the maintainters of best practices, provides appropriate feedback on accepted/rejected PRs, patches, etc.

• List of CIP kernel team members
  • MOXA has several team members from different department not full time dedicated (about 5-6).
    • SZLin recommends to have a dedicated person.
  • Daniel from Toshiba join to the team.
  • Agustin recommends to join the Thursday IRC meeting.
  • Renesas will keep doing his work backporting the already merged upstream patches and provide support to CIP about their platforms.

• Working on a new kernel release prior to OSSJ

• KernelCI vs Squad
  • https://qa-reports.linaro.org/
  • https://github.com/Linaro/squad

• CIP launches a CIP kernel team. The member will come from
• The team doesn’t have enough experience
• Ben move to focus to maintain the next Debian kernel (might based on next LTS kernel.), which CIP plans to pickup.
• At beginning The team want to work with stable team, because CIP 4.4 based on 4.4-stable
• For long term plan, CIP kernel team would like to take over 4.4 stable kernel maintainer roll from Greg, if no one will take over from him
• CIP kernel team focus to work with LTS (GregKH) to get more experience and also trust from kernel community.
• After 6 years maintenance CIP will focus to maintain for security fixes
  • Which security fixes?
    • Need to have it to keep CIP member’s products?
    • All fixes?
• Decision
  • CIP will participate to LTS review process
  • CIP will hire a person who has experience to maintaining kernel

• CIP kernel talk at OSSJ under preparation.

• Proposal: Renesas would like to propose a reference board for developing ARM64 kernel and to explain the spec of the device/board.
• Proposal: Moxa would like to propose reference boards with ARMHF in below
  • https://www.moxa.com/product/UC-2100.htm
  • AI(MOXA): Send the board support package to upstream then
• Resolved: CIP will select Renesas RZ/G2M hardware platform as next reference platform for ARM64.
  • Approved
• Resolved: TSC request to MOXA to go through upstreaming process and then will consider for vote.
  • Approved.

• CIP need to have some guidance for such kind of vulnerabilities
• Will we backport mitigations?
• Patches are needed at least, but applying the patches to CIP kerel depends on customer.
  • Hitachi doesn’t recommend to enable Spectre/Meltdown mitigation because of the performance degradation unless it is truly required. It is important to clarify what use cases require the mitigation and what are risks if it is not applied
• Put the following topics for next TSC meeting to make sure at OSSJ/LTSI workshop
  • Proposal: CIP will undertake a detailed investigation to identify the feasibility of Meltdown and Spectre mitigation in the CIP Kernel.
  • Proposal: CIP will tell the LF that we have prioritize the Meltdown/Spectre issues issues are Linux issues
    • Continue communicate with the LF how worrie

• Work towards finalising selection?
• Minimal, optimal or others?
• Discussion: Which package list will be submitted to Debian LTS?
• Daniel S. has interesting ideas about how to prioritise the list of packages we have collected.
  • These ideas, based on prioritising the list through security related criteria will be explained in the cip-dev mailing list.
  • Ben H. will evaluate these criteria and its impact before attending to DebConf.
  • Based on Ben H. feedback, CIP will decide to contact the Freexian leads before the DebConf or not.

• Who will attend? The last day to confirm attendance is 6/21
  • Ben, Wolfgang, SZ, Nobu, Kazu and Yoshi
  • Booth should be managed by Wolfgang, SZ, Nobu, Kazu and Yoshi.
• CIP will have a booth.
• AI(MOXA): Confirm to bring some demo for CIP booth.

• CIP decide to move to centralized environment
• B@D status
• Distributed LAVA server/lab status
• Test case creation/contribution
• Next steps
  • Setup KernelCI instance in centralized server
    • Put test results to KernelCI
• Does any member already set up LAVA internally?
  • Moxa has jenkins/ LAVA testing system internally, Moxa can share it when it’s stable enough.

• Codethink is open to discuss with CIP the assignment of Ben H. as CIP kernel maintainer if CIP selects the next Debian kernel as CIP kernel. The nature of the future relation can be similar of the initial relation established between the Linux Foundation and Codethink. Ben H. will also support the new 4.4-cip kernel maintainer.