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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:03:41 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
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 2023-10-16 09:24:19-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:34:53PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > On 2023-10-12 12:06:33-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 08:39:14PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-10-12 11:25:02-0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > [..]
> > > 
> > > > > > I have a signed tag urgent/nolibc.2023.10.12a in the -rcu tree, so
> > > > > > please check the lead-in text for sanity.  (Everything after the digital
> > > > > > signature is automatically generated.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looks good. But it's only a listing of the commit subjects, correct?
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty close, just a few added words on the last one.
> > > > 
> > > > So the question is whether there is some larger issue that Linus should
> > > > be made aware of.  If these are just simple fixes for simple bugs,
> > > > we should be good, but yes, I do need to ask.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > These are simple fixes for simple bugs.
> > > 
> > > Do you always have to ask specifically or can I just mention it in the
> > > pull request in the future?
> > 
> > I would be extremely happy to simply copy text from the pull request
> > into the signed tags.  ;-)
> > 
> > We would just need to agree on the format.  For example, in this case,
> > there will eventually be two signed tags, one for the urgent pull
> > request early next week and another for the pull request for the upcoming
> > merge window.
> > 
> > Proposals for the format?
> 
> Actually, proposals for the signed-tag text for the urgent commits?
> Left to myself, I would use the same text shown below that I proposed
> last week.

Looks good.

The tags for urgent PRs seem good with one item per patch.
I guess for normal PRs one item per series would be fine.

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> tag urgent/nolibc.2023.10.12a
> Tagger: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Date:   Thu Oct 12 10:50:08 2023 -0700
> 
> Urgent pull request for nolibc into v6.6
> 
> This pull request contains the following fixes:
> 
> o	tools/nolibc: i386: Fix a stack misalign bug on _start
> 
> o	MAINTAINERS: nolibc: update tree location
> 
> o	tools/nolibc: mark start_c as weak to avoid linker errors

> [..]