linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1

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]

Message-ID: <1494094356.2407.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Sat, 06 May 2017 11:12:36 -0700
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1

On Sat, 2017-05-06 at 11:00 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Stephen Rothwell <
> sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:01:34 -0700 Linus Torvalds <
> > torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I prefer doing merge resolutions myself, but I *also* really 
> > > really prefer the two sides of the conflict having been more 
> > > aware of the clash.
> > 
> > Would that be this?
> 
> Yup. Apparently neither Greg nor James ended up reacting to that
> email, though,

Yes, we did, but for the one in SCSI ... as I said the original
conflict resolution with our tree was eventually found to be slightly
wrong so there was an email thread over it.

There's not much I can do about the one in tpmdd-devel because it's not
my tree.  Even Jarkko can't do much more than tell James Morris for the
Security tree, and I think this came up after it had already been
pulled into that tree.

>  so by the time I got the pull requests there was no
> mention of it anywhere.

Well, there was in the SCSI pull request, but the only reason I
remembered is because I'd made a special note of the potential resolve
problem when this came up on the SCSI mailing list.  The original merge
conflict email came 6 weeks before the merge window, which is why
everyone had had time to forget.

What about resending the conflict reminders at -rc7 ... that way we
only have a week or two to forget again?

The other issue is that one of the potential trees only got notified
directly (the char-misc one) because the tpmdd tree takes an indirect
pull route.  I'm not sure what we can do about this one.

James