linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:47:45 +0300
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Ed Swierk <eswierk@...portsystems.com>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, stefanb@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] tpm_tis: Improve reporting of IO errors

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 06:24:30PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:26:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Hmm... Do you mean by 4 month old stuff the stuff that is in mainline
> > > and not in my master branch?
> > 
> > I mean the stuff that is in your branch but not in mainline.
> > 
> > $ git log --pretty=oneline jarkko/master ^v4.7-rc3 | wc -l
> > 73
> > 
> > > I'm not sure what happened with 4.7. I merged the changes for in about
> > > 4.6-rc5. There was one issue that I fixed that Stephen reported.
> > > 
> > > At the moment linux-next seems contain the stuff that I have in my
> > > next.
> > 
> > linux-next is just pulling directly from your tree, you still have to
> > ensure that James gets and processes your pull request during the
> > merge window. If he dropped a pull request you should follow up and
> > ask why, if you never sent one then ... oops :)
> 
> For 4.6 I used pull request with a signed tag and everything went quite
> well.
> 
> For 4.7 I did re-read the whole development process documentation but it
> only speaks about pull requests and does not clearly state what you just
> stated.
> 
> To summarize I screwed this one up but I guess the only big harm is that
> vTPM support will skip to 4.8. I guess not big harm done?
> 
> My master is now rebased and this is what I get:
> 
> $ git log --oneline security/next...master | wc -l
> 67
> 
> I don't think that is too bad.

My repositories are ready for next pull request. The master has been
rebased to James' tree and merged to next.

I won't add any new commits expect critical bug fixes for 4.8 release
content.

/Jarkko