linux-kernel - Re: nolibc changes since 6.6-rc1 for linux-next

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: <ZSOsK+2G/P/nVWO0@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:30:51 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nolibc changes since 6.6-rc1 for linux-next

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 09:22:59AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Willy, Paul,
> 
> On 2023-10-09 08:53:58+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 09:27:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > (...)
> > > The other approach involves rebasing the "nolibc/next" stack
> > > on top of the "nolibc/fixes" stack.
> > 
> > That was my initial expectation as well, it's much easier, preserves
> > the patches ordering so it guarantees that all fixes are always present
> > in -next and that there won't be conflicts when they're finally submitted.
> 
> The workflow Paul described indeed makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I can redo it this afternoon.
> 
> > [..]
> 
> > > While in the area, would the following (absolutely not urgent or even
> > > particularly important) patch be a good idea?  This gets rid of a line
> > > of noise from "git status" after running the tests.
> > 
> > Good idea, feel free to propose a patch ;-)
> 
> How about directly folding it into the original patch?
> I can take care of that later today, too.

OK thank you very much Thomas!
Willy