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]

Message-ID: <CA+ASDXN40pvbZKvsO3Cb8256AQJ3fyQh5TWdT+GDk_ncq11nMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:16:21 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     sky@...ki.is, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        lists@...dbynature.de, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check
 more robust"

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:18 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Genki Sky <sky@...ki.is> wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:55:14 -0800, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > > Ubuntu 16.04 ships with git version 2.7.4.
> >
> > Okay. I guess --no-optional-locks is a no-go then.
>
> 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.

+1, that's what I was going to suggest. Presumably older git would
give non-zero exit status for unknown flags, and we take that as
signal to try to the old way?