linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review

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:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:55:38 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:36:55AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:22:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:05:00AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> 
> > > Does it make sense to create tags for the RC(s) so git describe gets
> > > it right? Given the right version is in the Makefile kinda feels like
> > > that'd be a belt and suspenders approach.
> 
> > Depends. A tag only makes sense if the branch isn't rebased, otherwise
> > (if the tag can change) it would be misleading (as would be to report
> > the version number from Makefile).
> 
> Rebasing shouldn't be an issue for tags (they're not branches), and
> changes would a disaster no matter what.

Can you push --force a tag?  I've never tried that, don't want to mess
up a kernel.org tree by trying it out :)

Because of that, I haven't been tagging the -rc trees, as I didn't think
it was really needed.  The linux-stable-rc tree is just a "convenience"
for people to use for testing, it's not really a "cannonical" tree at
the moment because of that.

> > Given that, I think reporting the SHA is better, since it reports clearly
> > which version was tested.
> 
> This definitely makes sense though (especially in a generalized tool),
> defensively if nothing else.  I think you ideally want both.

Yes, use 'make kernelversion' to get the kernel's view of the release
number, don't use 'git describe' please, as it does not know about
changes to the Makefile (nor should it...)

thanks,

greg k-h