linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check more robust"

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, 07 Nov 2018 13:26:46 -0800
From:   Genki Sky <sky@...ki.is>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>, lists@...dbynature.de,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check
 more robust"

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:18:19 -0800, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> From reading the thread it sounds like Guenter was not even super
> happy with that based on the principal that you wouldn't expect a
> kernel build to be doing write operations in your .git directory even
> if $objtree == $srctree

I see, thanks.

> In theory you could wrap it.  If passing git with
> "--no-optional-locks" doesn't work you could fall back to the old
> code?  That would mean only people with newer git would get your new
> feature and everyone else would stick with the pre-existing behavior.
>
> It does seem like any things like this should be done atop Guenter's
> revert.  AKA: revert first to get things working the way that they
> were and then start talking about how to make it better.

Okay, it's trading one regression for another, but I guess it's clear
that yours is much more painful. Sorry to have held up progress here.
I'll back out of the discussion until this is reverted.