linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage

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:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 03:41:50 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: add tests for multi-object linkage

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:23:29AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Willy, Paul,
> 
> On 2023-10-12 09:06:33+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 01:13:37AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > While uncommon, nolibc executables can be linked together from multiple
> > > compilation units.
> > > Add some tests to make sure everything works in that case.
> > (...)
> 
> [..]
> 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > > ---
> > > Note:
> > > 
> > > This depends on path "tools/nolibc: mark start_c as weak".
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231012-nolibc-start_c-multiple-v1-1-fbfc73e0283f@weissschuh.net/
> > 
> > For these two patches: Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> 
> Thanks, applied locally.
> 
> I guess the linked patch "tools/nolibc: mark start_c as weak" should
> also go into nolibc/fixes.
> 
> @Paul, would it introduce too much churn for you if I submit another
> nolibc pull with an updated nolibc/fixes?
> (And the rebased nolibc/next with this commit while we are at it)

Not a problem this week!

But after about Wednesday of next week, getting things into the upcoming
merge window is pretty much as fast as sending them quickly to Linus,
if that makes sense.  Unless there is to be a -rc8 this time, but I
have heard no sign of that.

Make sense?

							Thanx, Paul