linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] scripts: introduce containerized builds

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: <e59c64e0-68b9-4c3a-aeaf-266edb968634@gtucker.io>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:22:59 +0100
From: Guillaume Tucker <gtucker@...cker.io>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
 Onur Özkan <work@...rozkan.dev>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
 automated-testing@...ts.yoctoproject.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] scripts: introduce containerized builds

Hi Nathan,

On 16/01/2026 10:12 pm, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Hi Guillaume,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 11:28:24AM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 31/12/2025 17:51, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> - Refactor common code for Docker and Podman
>>> - Add docs.kernel.org URL in help message
>>> - Use pathlib Python package
>>> - Handle signals in parent process by default
>>> - Add --shell option to use an interactive shell
>>> - Tweak debug messages in verbose mode
>>> - Specify Python 3.10 as minimum version in the docs
>>> - Provide an example env file in the docs
>>> - Update docs regarding interactive shell usage
>>
>> I'm sure you're all busy landing commits ahead of the next merge
>> window.  Could you please take a look at this v3 when you have a
>> moment?  I believe I've addressed everything from previous reviews.
> 
> So sorry for the radio silence. I was going to try and look at this
> today to give feedback before the weekend but I will not be able to look
> at it until Monday. Given that this is self-contained (no pun intended)
> with no regression risks, I would have no qualms with applying this late
> in the development cycle.

Thanks for getting back to me, that's great.  I'll keep working on
some follow-up improvements in the meantime, regardless of the pace
of the review process.

Cheers,
Guillaume