linux-kernel - Re: Clang patches for 4.9

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: <20190225175549.GA11688@archlinux-ryzen>
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:55:49 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Clang patches for 4.9

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:46:56AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:35 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:47:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:13:01PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > > Hi Greg and Sasha,
> > > > >
> > > > > Attached are three mbox files containing patches that bring the Clang
> > > > > backports that Nick did in 4.9.139 up to date with what is currently in
> > > > > 4.14 and mainline, as well as fix warnings that are present in the arm64
> > > > > and x86_64 defconfigs here and in AOSP (cuttlefish_defconfig). All of
> > > > > these warnings are fixed in 4.14 so there will be no regressions from
> > > > > upgrading.
> > > >
> > > > Really?  I see a number of these only showing up in much newer kernels.
> >
> > Sigh that's what I get for not double checking my email after adding
> > patches :(
> >
> > > > Specifically these patches:
> > > >   1f60652dd586 ("pinctrl: max77620: Use define directive for max77620_pinconf_param values")
> > > >   a0dd6773038f ("phy: tegra: remove redundant self assignment of 'map'")
> > > >   a9903f04e0a4 ("sched/sysctl: Fix attributes of some extern declarations")
> > > >
> > > > from the "arm" mbox you provided.  Why shouldn't the above patches go
> > > > into 4.14.y and in some cases, also 4.19.y and 4.20.y?
> >
> > They should. All three pick cleanly to 4.14.y. Only the first one needs
> > to be taken into 4.19.y and 4.20.y.
> 
> I feel like I need a script that given a sha, tells me what LTS
> branches the patch is in or not.  I have this to tell me "when (what's
> the first tag that contains this commit)" a patch first landed:
> 
> function first_tag () {
>   tag=$1
>   git describe --contains "$tag" | sed 's/~.*//'
> }
> 
> So say a patch landed in 4.15-rc1; and I want to backport to 4.9 and
> 4.14 (but it's already been backported to 4.14).  Does anyone have a
> script to check this quickly?  The process for seeing which LTS
> contains a commit or not still is very manual.  I guess backports that
> require modification probably complicate the search further.  Just
> asking, in case this is already a solved problem.
> 

I usually use this one liner in a stable tree:

$ git log --oneline --grep="$(git show -s --format="%s" <mainline_sha>)" origin/linux-<ver>.y

You could also grep for the mainline hash.

> -- 
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers