linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the ntfs3 tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210927080204.3f2e8c26@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:02:04 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>
Cc:     Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the ntfs3 tree

Hi Kari,

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:47:00 +0300 Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 04:50:02PM +0300, Konstantin Komarov wrote:
> > 
> > On 21.09.2021 01:31, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> > > 
> > > In commit
> > > 
> > >   0412016e4807 ("fs/ntfs3: Fix wrong error message $Logfile -> $UpCase")
> > > 
> > > Fixes tag
> > > 
> > >   Fixes: 203c2b3a406a ("fs/ntfs3: Add initialization of super block")
> > > 
> > > has these problem(s):
> > > 
> > >   - Target SHA1 does not exist
> > > 
> > > Maybe you meant
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 82cae269cfa9 ("fs/ntfs3: Add initialization of super block")
> > >   
> > 
> > Hello.
> > 
> > You are right, correct SHA is 82cae269cfa9.
> > Sorry, I've missed this while applying patch.
> > 
> > As far as I know there is no way to fix this now -
> > commit is already in linux-next.  
> 
> This still is not fixed. Can you Stephen verify that rebase is ok in
> situatian like this? Also now we have situation that this thing is 6 day
> old already. I actually also do not know if it is ok to rebase anymore,
> but, probably is. I have checked every follow up patches which has been
> applied after this and they are not affected if we rebase.

A rebase is probably not necessary, as the commit is easy to find using
its subject line (as I did). However, it would be better to avoid such
situations in the future.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped