linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] keys: Collected minor fixes and cleanups

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, 14 Dec 2020 13:05:51 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        "Alexander A. Klimov" <grandmaster@...klimov.de>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@...il.com>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] keys: Collected minor fixes and cleanups

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I suspect the fix is trivial (change the "," to "|"), but I will not
> be pulling this - or anything else that hasn't been in linux-next -
> from you this merge window.

It looks like Stephen Rothwell saw it in next yesterday, and fixed it
up there in his merge.

So somebody was aware of the problem. But unlike Stephen, I don't take
broken code and just silently fix it up in the merge.

I suspect Stephen might have thought it was a merge conflict fix,
rather than just a broken branch.

Stephen: that makes linux-next test coverage kind of pointless, if you
just fix bugs in the branches you merge. You should reject things more
aggressively, rather than make them "pass" in Linux-next.

              Linus