linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/370] 5.15.111-rc2 review

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:   Wed, 10 May 2023 18:09:35 -0500
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, laoar.shao@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/370] 5.15.111-rc2 review

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:58 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks!  Turns out someone put the wrong "Fixes:" tag in that commit
> which is why I missed it.

Hmm. Presumably the real commit ceeadb83aea2 at some point got
rebased, and had had that other mentioned SHA1 before that.

It might be a good idea in general - not just for stable - if we had
some automation that said "this refers to a commit ID that doesn't
exist".

Of course, sometimes those commits might exist elsewhere (ie the
stable tree obviously refers to upstream commits that are *not*
directly reachable from the commit that refers to it, and thus relies
on another tree not rebasing itself).

But on the whole, I would expect that the normal situation, outside of
that "upstream commit" issue in the stable tree, is that you only
refer to commits that are actually reachable from the referrer commit.

Or do people refer to other branches' (or even other projects') commit IDs?

It might be interesting to have some automation, particularly if it
then might highlight the situation where the same one-line description
does exist under a different commit name...

                Linus