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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7hy3pgdh2g.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:57:27 -0700
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        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

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:18:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> 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>).
>
> Ah, but then if someone had pulled the old tag, they would have to
> delete it locally before they can pull in the new one.  That's the main
> reason I'll not do this...
>
> Again, use the make command that we have just for this reason...

AFAICT, the make command will not generate a unique value, so, as often
happens, a release is almost ready but one more patch is
added/removed/modified etc.  'git describe' is the only way to get a
unique value, that's also human readable.

Kevin