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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:59:18 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the nolibc tree

On 8/18/23 07:27, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> 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.  ;-)
> 
> The patch in the vfs tree will make the test fail so it makes sense to
> have both go in together. I would normally be happy to drop it but I'm
> rather unenthusiastic in this particular case because I replied to this
> almost 5 weeks ago on Thursday, July 13 and since then this has been in
> -next.
> 

I totally understand you being unenthusiastic. Considering summer
vacation schedules and all, emails get missed at times.

I sincerely request you to consider dropping as it is the simpler route
for all involved.

thanks,
-- Shuah