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]

Message-ID: <20170913191812.GA3478@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:18:12 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, 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 11:55:38AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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 :)

Yes. I don't recall if it is a direct --force or if you would have to
remove the original tag first (with git push <repo> :refs/tags/<tag>).

Guenter

> 
> 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