Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi James, > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > > > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. > > > > AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development > > purposes. > > > > And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully. > > Are you going to fix this before asking Linus to pull? Yes. -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
Hi James, On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. > > AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development > purposes. > > And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully. Are you going to fix this before asking Linus to pull? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgpu7LR2jHhBy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On 12/6/2012 3:21 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite >> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. > AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development > purposes. > > And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully. I have messed up and believe that I understand my error and the impact that it has had on others. I also believe that I understand what I should be doing henceforth. Once I get the word from James I will rebase my tree from his. I will stop doing merges except as recommended. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development purposes. And sorry, I should be checking the trees I pull from more carefully. - James -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
Hi James, On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:25:21 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. So to be explicit, I think you need to do this: - tell as many people as possible that you are going to rebase your tree - reset your tree back to the point just before you pulled Casey's tree (3f0cc6ae8662). - Casey needs to rebase his tree on top of yours - then after Casey has tested his tree again you can repull his new tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgpG8Fi89BoBA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM, James Morris wrote: > Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what > people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it. Quite frankly, I really am not going to pull that. It has random crazy merges for no reason what-so-ever. This is *exactly* the kind of stuff I used to speak out against years ago, and I thought we had long since put behind us. Do git fetch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security next gitk ..FETCH_HEAD from mainline to see what I'm talking about. It has all those random merges interspersed with random sporadic development. This is not how we make history make sense. It looks like Casey has for the last year+ just had his own tree, done his own thing, and then pulled from the 'next' branch of security at random points to intermix his occasional commits with everything else.So now all his sporadic commits are randomly intermixed together with *everything* else that happened over the last year. It's kind of the epitome of not-a-feature-branch. There are 26 "normal" commits spread out over the year, coupled with 22 merges that have been done bi-weekly or something, and have altogether brought in 13 *thousand* commits that have very little to do with the 26 commits that are new work. And with many of the merges done despite that development tree having *no* development in it of its own, so you have those repeated "let's merge upstream code" pulls that only add upstream code with no development in between. This is the kind of development that should be kept private, and maybe using a "git pull --rebase" to maintain the private commits on top of whatever upstream. NOT be used to say "ok, I now have more than a year of messy development history of 22 changes randomly interspersed with the thirteen thousand commits that went into mainline during that year+ time". Or it should just have been a development branch that only did its own development and never pulled from upstream. Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it. On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Casey, > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler > wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > The security tree > > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > > > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey > > > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of > > > your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in > > > your tree from yesterday. > > > > I *thought* that I had used the same procedures that worked before. > > In fact, I still do think that, but if it's a problem I can purge my > > smack-next tree and start over. > > > > James, the two changes that came from smack-next are pretty minor. I > > don't think you should hesitate to back them out if that helps. > > This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between > yesterday and today; > > Casey Schaufler (32): > Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced a change > to the way rule lists are handled and reported in the smackfs filesystem. > One of the issues addressed had to do with the termination of read > requests on /smack/load. This change introduced a error in /smack/cipso, > which shares some of the same list processing code. > Revert "Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced" > Smack: smackfs cipso seq read repair > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Smack: recursive tramsmute > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Smack: allow for significantly longer Smack labels v4 > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Smack: fix smack_new_inode bogosities > Smack: Maintainer Record > Smack: onlycap limits on CAP_MAC_ADMIN > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Smack: user access check bounds > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Smack: remove task_wait() hook. > Smack: setprocattr memory leak fix > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'for-1209' > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security > into for-1211 > Smack: use select not depends in Kconfig > Smack: create a sysfs mount point for smackfs > > Rafal Krypa (2): > Smack: don't show empty rules when /smack/load or /smack/load2 is read > Smack: implement revoking all rules for a subject label > > Tetsuo Handa (1): > gfp flags for security_inode_alloc()? > > It's a bit of a mess :-( > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au > -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Nov 27, 2012 4:01 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote: > > > > Hi > > This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between > > yesterday and today; > > This is an excellent example of the kind of tree I will not pull from. > > There are more merges than actual work. No way, Jose. Ugh, I somehow missed this thread last week. -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
Hi Casey, On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler wrote: > > On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > The security tree > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey > > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of > > your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in > > your tree from yesterday. > > I *thought* that I had used the same procedures that worked before. > In fact, I still do think that, but if it's a problem I can purge my > smack-next tree and start over. > > James, the two changes that came from smack-next are pretty minor. I > don't think you should hesitate to back them out if that helps. This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between yesterday and today; Casey Schaufler (32): Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced a change to the way rule lists are handled and reported in the smackfs filesystem. One of the issues addressed had to do with the termination of read requests on /smack/load. This change introduced a error in /smack/cipso, which shares some of the same list processing code. Revert "Commit 272cd7a8c67dd40a31ecff76a503bbb84707f757 introduced" Smack: smackfs cipso seq read repair Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Smack: recursive tramsmute Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Smack: allow for significantly longer Smack labels v4 Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Smack: fix smack_new_inode bogosities Smack: Maintainer Record Smack: onlycap limits on CAP_MAC_ADMIN Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Smack: user access check bounds Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Smack: remove task_wait() hook. Smack: setprocattr memory leak fix Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'for-1209' Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security Merge branch 'next' of git://git.kernel.org/.../jmorris/linux-security into for-1211 Smack: use select not depends in Kconfig Smack: create a sysfs mount point for smackfs Rafal Krypa (2): Smack: don't show empty rules when /smack/load or /smack/load2 is read Smack: implement revoking all rules for a subject label Tetsuo Handa (1): gfp flags for security_inode_alloc()? It's a bit of a mess :-( -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgpax5Yk1aUq8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:31 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag > > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always > > has you as the committer (and maybe SOB). > > > > Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers? > > No. That just hides the real problem - back-merges of random points in > history. > > Don't do them, people. EVER. I was also thinking about the case where a developer does work based on the maintainer's published tree and then the maintainer pulls that work sometime later (when his published tree has not been updated in the mean time). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgp0tmOLnXPo4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi James, > > The security tree > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of > your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in > your tree from yesterday. I *thought* that I had used the same procedures that worked before. In fact, I still do think that, but if it's a problem I can purge my smack-next tree and start over. James, the two changes that came from smack-next are pretty minor. I don't think you should hesitate to back them out if that helps. > > Just for your consideration. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always > has you as the committer (and maybe SOB). > > Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers? No. That just hides the real problem - back-merges of random points in history. Don't do them, people. EVER. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
Hi James, On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:16:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > The security tree > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of > your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey's tree after he merged in > your tree from yesterday. If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always has you as the committer (and maybe SOB). Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgpAZjkllgULg.pgp Description: PGP signature
