linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/setlocalversion: Improve -dirty check with git-status --no-optional-locks

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:   Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:42:26 +0200
From:   Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@...il.com>
To:     sky@...ki.is
Cc:     schwab@...ux-m68k.org, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, lists@...dbynature.de,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/setlocalversion: Improve -dirty check with
 git-status --no-optional-locks

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:59 PM Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 7:41 PM Genki Sky <sky@...ki.is> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:48:38 +0200, Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Piping the output of the git command to grep and using the return status
> > > of grep as the test condition within the if block, would be sufficient
> > > to determine whether or not '-dirty' should be printed.
> > >
> > > Sample run:
> > > % if git --no-optional-locks \
> > >         status -uno --porcelain \
> > >         2>/dev/null |
> > >         grep -qv '^.. scripts/package'
> > > then
> > >         printf '%s' -dirty
> > > fi
> >
> > I don't think this works well for us. We need to check whether
> > --no-optional-locks is available before using the output to determine
> > whether the tree is dirty or not. If it's not available, we have to
> > fall back on diff-index. Let me know if I'm misreading you.
>
> It was I who failed to read the proposed patch in its entirety in the
> first place. I did not get the full picture as a result. My apologies.
>
> Would something like this work for you?
>
> local git_status
> git_status=$(git --no-optional-locks status -uno --porcelain 2>/dev/null)
> test $? -eq 0 ||
>         git_status=$(git diff-index --name-only HEAD)
> if printf '%s' "$git_status"  | grep -qv scripts/package; then
>         printf '%s' -dirty
> fi

An even simpler approach would be:

{
        git --no-optional-locks status -uno --porcelain 2>/dev/null ||
        git diff-index --name-only HEAD
} | grep -qv scripts/package &&
        printf '%s' -dirty

Sample run:
cmd
sh: cmd: command not found

{
        cmd 2>/dev/null ||
        date
} | grep -q 2018 &&
        printf '%s' ok
ok