linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mhng-4EB34AF4-99CD-44B7-92E2-19D63EC0E099@palmerdabbelt-mac>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: alexghiti@...osinc.com, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, cyrilbur@...storrent.com,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 12:30:41 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:08:15 PDT (-0700), alexghiti@...osinc.com wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 6:23 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:35:13 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > In commit
>>> >
>>> >   4e27ce58e7fa ("riscv: uaccess: Only restore the CSR_STATUS SUM bit")
>>> >
>>> > Fixes tag
>>> >
>>> >   Fixes: 788aa64c0c01 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>>> >
>>> > has these problem(s):
>>> >
>>> >   - Target SHA1 does not exist
>>> >
>>> > Maybe you meant
>>> >
>>> > Fixes: b0feecf5b812 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>>> > Fixes: 788aa64c01f1 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")

I think that's the correct one now.  It's disturbingly close to the 
broken hash, though, and I've been staring at commit IDs for so long 
trying to figure out this rebase that I'm kind of losing my mind...

>>> > or
>>> > Fixes: 8f9b274ad153 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>>> >
>>> > (yes, they are all the same patch ... and all ancestors of 4e27ce58e7fa)
>>>
>>> Ya, thanks.  Something's gone way off the rails here, let me try to
>>> figure it out...
>>
>> I expected to send this fix (along with other fixes) next week, after
>> the -rc1 was released, with the proper fixes tag, so maybe Palmer you
>> can just drop it?
>
> The actual problem is that you've got some sort of rebasing going on,
> which is causing duplicate patches.  We just got lucky and this Fixes
> checked happened to stumble on it, but there's a bunch of these.
>
> I'm going through and rebasing your PRs to try and get it cleaned up,
> but next week we should talk about some workflow stuff because something
> is wrong.
>
>>
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Stephen Rothwell