linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

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: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1805101802150.27054@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 18:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>, "w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> >> Then, why don't we have a pre-integration tree for fixes? That would
> >> at least simply automated testing of fixes separately from new
> >> material.
> >
> >> Perhaps this has already been discussed, and concluded and it's not
> >> worth it, then apologize for my ignorance.
> >
> > I think this is an excellent idea, copying in Stephen for his input.
> > I'm currently on holiday but unless someone convinces me it's a terrible
> > idea I'm willing to at least give it a go on a trial basis once I'm back
> > home.
> 
> Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the
> -next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All
> he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some
> linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots.

What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that 
is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next 
branch as well.

This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b) 
seeing any potential merge conflicts early

Is this not feasible for other trees?

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs