linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the nolibc 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <01d517c4-d91b-4426-b7f2-2b1277f21d8c@paulmck-laptop>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:41:45 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the nolibc tree

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 09:39:09PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:46:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:27:46PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > On 8/17/23 10:30, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > On 2023-08-17 13:38:11+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > The following commit is also in the vfs-brauner tree as a different commit
> > > > > (but the same patch):
> > > > > 
> > > > >    ba859b2e419c ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is commit
> > > > > 
> > > > >    49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> > > > > 
> > > > > in the vfs-brauner tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I think we can drop the patch from the nolibc tree.
> > > > The patch is only really necessary in combination with
> > > > commit 18e66ae67673 ("proc: use generic setattr() for /proc/$PID/net")
> > > > which already is and should stay in the vfs tree.
> > > 
> > > Thomas,
> > > 
> > > Do the rest of the nolibc patches build without this if we were
> > > to drop this patch? Dorpping requires rebase and please see below.
> > > 
> > > Willy, Paul,
> > > 
> > > How do we want to handle this so we can avoid rebasing to keep
> > > the Commit IDs the same as one ones in Willy's nolibc branch?
> > 
> > The usual way would be for Willy to drop the patch, rebase, and republish
> > his branch.  You would then discard the current branch and pull the
> > new one.
> > 
> > > I would recommend dropping this commit from vfs-brauner if it
> > > doesn't cause problems.
> > 
> > It might be good for nolibc patches to be going through Willy's tree.
> 
> It would indeed be more logical as a general rule. However, here I don't
> care as I don't see any issue caused by dropping it, I can adapt to what
> is most convenient for most of us.
> 
> Let's maybe just wait a little bit for Christian to suggest what he
> prefers then we can adapt.
> 
> > Or does Christian have some situation where it is necessary to make
> > a coordinated vfs/nolibc change?
> 
> I don't think there's any need for coordination on this one.

It is always good when either option can be make to work.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul