linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] non-MM commits for 6.2-rc1

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 Dec 2022 18:35:54 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] non-MM commits for 6.2-rc1

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 00:16:07 +0100 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:

> On 12/12/22 23:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:16:43 -0700 "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 01:44:25PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> >       wifi: rt2x00: use explicitly signed or unsigned types
> >> 
> >> Why is this part of your PULL? This was a netdev/wireless tree fix which
> >> was in 6.1-rc5. Kalle wrote that he took it on 21 Oct 2022 in:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/166633563389.6242.13987912613257140089.kvalo@kernel.org/
> >> 
> > 
> > Huh.  I guess git quietly accepts the identical commit, so Stephen
> > never told me and my test-merge-with-Linus-latest also came up clean. 
> > Which leaves it to me to manually handle these things, and that's
> > unreliable.
> > 
> > Is there some way of telling git to complain about identical changes
> > when doing a trial merge?
>  
> Probably not exactly that, but there seems to be a way with "git cherry". Dunno
> how reliable in practice, seems to be based on patch-id so probably can fail
> easily if the commit or context changes slightly?

Well here's a hacky thing - just look for duplicated patch titles after
stripping away the hashes.


$ git log --oneline --no-merges v6.0..HEAD | sed -e "s/[^ ]* //" | sort > /tmp/1        
$ uniq < /tmp/1 > /tmp/2
$ diff -u /tmp/1 /tmp/2 | grep "^-.*"

The above turns up 67 duplicates in Linus's tree and 382 in linux-next.
Maybe this is wrong - I'm just tossing it out there in the hope that
someone will do the work for me :)