linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: head-common.S: Clear lr before jumping to start

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, 14 Oct 2017 15:17:41 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@...esas.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: head-common.S: Clear lr before jumping to
 start_kernel()

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 03:14:05PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:25:50AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > It should go into your devel-testing branch as this must be applied on 
> > top of my xip_zdata branch that you merged there.
> 
> Thanks, it would've been good to have known that ahead of time.
> 
> It's why the patch system has the KernelVersion: tag:
> 
>  6. Kernel version.
>     On a separate line, add a tag "KernelVersion: " followed by the kernel
>     version that the patch was generated against. This should be formatted
>     as "KernelVersion: 2.6.0-rmk1"
> 
> This is because that information is relevant for knowing where it should
> be applied, and to which branch.  Having it be something else means I
> have to guess, and that can result in the patch being discarded in this
> manner if I don't find where it's supposed to be applied.
> 
> Yes, I know it's a pain to have to supply this information, but giving
> accurate information there makes things a lot easier and quicker when
> applying patches, rather than playing a game of "guess where it needs
> to be applied, nope, doesn't apply there, try somewhere else."
> 
> Various people in the kernel community have different solutions to this.
> For example, on netdev, it is preferred to state whether you want your
> patch to be applied to "net" or "net-next" by adding that into the
> "[PATCH ...]" tag in the subject line.  It's really about streamlining
> the patch submission and application process.

The tag can take a plain kernel version and a kernel version suffixed
with a shortened git hash (please avoid the full hash, it doesn't
display well with the web presentation, and will probably be truncated
when it's inserted into the database.)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up