linux-kernel - Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window

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: <5cc3d6df-42b0-8275-705f-405dc48f3711@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:37:51 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Upcoming nolibc pull request for the next merge window

On 7/24/23 09:31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 08:49:40AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 7/21/23 22:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 01:01:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 10:39:48 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is just to let you know that Willy and I are adding co-maintainers
>>>>> for nolibc.  Shuah Khan will join me as administrative maintainer,
>>>>> and will be sending the pull request to you for the next merge window.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, Thomas Weißschuh will be joining Willy as technical maintainer
>>>>> for nolibc.  With luck, this won't affect you, but in case you come across
>>>>> a nolibc issue, please reach out to Thomas as well as Willy, Shuah,
>>>>> and myself.  There will of course be an update to the MAINTAINERS file
>>>>> in the near future, but just to let you know in the meantime.
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to add a separate nolibc branch to linux-next (and
>>>> no longer merge it into the rcu branch?  Or are there dependencies
>>>> between the two?
>>>
>>> Dependencies between nolibc and RCU are extremely rare, so it might well
>>> make sense to have a separate branch.
>>>
>>> Maybe nolibc/next from either the -rcu tree or Shuah's tree?  Shuah,
>>> would something else work better for you?
>>>
>>
>> We probably have to add linux-kselftest nolibc and rcu nolibc since
>> we are planning to alternating pull requests?
>>
>> Paul, you and I have to make sure we don't have duplicate patches
>> in our nolibc branches.
> 
> If the duplicate patches all have the same SHA-1 hashes, we should be
> good, right?  Or am I missing something subtle here?
> 

You are right - no duplication. We are good.

Stephen, would you like me to send a formal request to add
linux-kselftest nolibc to next?

thanks,
-- Shuah