* [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5
@ 2011-09-05 9:42 Avi Kivity
2011-09-06 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-09-05 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: KVM list, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel
Linus, please pull from
git://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.1
to receive a fix for a build failure due to a missing instruction size
suffix in inline assembly.
Duncan Sands (1):
KVM: Fix instruction size issue in pvclock scaling
arch/x86/include/asm/pvclock.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5
2011-09-05 9:42 [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5 Avi Kivity
@ 2011-09-06 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-07 1:19 ` Josh Boyer
2011-09-07 4:06 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2011-09-06 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: KVM list, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> Linus, please pull from
>
> git://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.1
>
> to receive a fix for a build failure due to a missing instruction size
> suffix in inline assembly.
Again, please give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that this is really
Avi, and the right thing to do, rather than just a "please pull from
this random tree".
It's not that I don't think you are you, but I want people to actually
*think* about what they are doing and sending me. When you give me a
kernel.org address, I know you have access to kernel.org, and that
makes me believe you are you. When you give me a github address, that
doesn't really mean anything.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5
2011-09-06 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2011-09-07 1:19 ` Josh Boyer
2011-09-07 1:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-07 4:06 ` Avi Kivity
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Josh Boyer @ 2011-09-07 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Avi Kivity, KVM list, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Linus, please pull from
>>
>> git://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.1
>>
>> to receive a fix for a build failure due to a missing instruction size
>> suffix in inline assembly.
>
> Again, please give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that this is really
> Avi, and the right thing to do, rather than just a "please pull from
> this random tree".
>
> It's not that I don't think you are you, but I want people to actually
> *think* about what they are doing and sending me. When you give me a
> kernel.org address, I know you have access to kernel.org, and that
> makes me believe you are you. When you give me a github address, that
> doesn't really mean anything.
To your point, I would think you want that regardless. I certainly
don't mean to pile on the kernel.org guys, but it was compromised and
likely through a user account. I'm confident that this is a very rare
occurrence, but it can happen again. There was another somewhat high
profile hack earlier in the year against vendor-sec as well.
Maybe asking for some extra warm fuzzies from now on wouldn't be a
horrible idea as general practice.
I will now await a reply full of the cold pricklies.
josh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5
2011-09-07 1:19 ` Josh Boyer
@ 2011-09-07 1:37 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2011-09-07 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Boyer; +Cc: Avi Kivity, KVM list, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe asking for some extra warm fuzzies from now on wouldn't be a
> horrible idea as general practice.
I think that realistically we should definitely look at our practices,
but at the same time, I personally do put a lot of trust in "human
relationships".
Often way more than "technical models".
So there is a lot of safety in just a purely human "this looks like
the kind of pull request I expect". A lot of kernel developers write
nice messages explaining the pull, and there may not be a
cryptographic signature in text like that, but there is definitely a
"human signature" that you start to expect.
So one of the reasons I react to the github pulls is that even though
I'm actually pretty damn certain they are all the people they purport
to be, the "expected signature" is kind of missing. That's especially
true with a pull request that has just the minimal technically
required information - that is 99% script-generated to begin with.
Put another way: I'm not necessarily looking for cryptography. A reply
to a personal email of mine (that didn't go out to any mailing list)
is already a *much* stronger sign of identity: the person having
access to their email account. And once I know that yes, that github
repository was really set up by Xyz, then getting a pull request from
that is already much more sane and safe.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5
2011-09-06 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-07 1:19 ` Josh Boyer
@ 2011-09-07 4:06 ` Avi Kivity
2011-09-13 1:37 ` Arnaud Lacombe
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-09-07 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: KVM list, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel
On 09/07/2011 02:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Linus, please pull from
> >
> > git://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.1
> >
> > to receive a fix for a build failure due to a missing instruction size
> > suffix in inline assembly.
>
> Again, please give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that this is really
> Avi, and the right thing to do, rather than just a "please pull from
> this random tree".
Yup, it's the genuine thing here, and the s/mul/mulq/ is not an
incredibly clever backdoor.
> It's not that I don't think you are you, but I want people to actually
> *think* about what they are doing and sending me. When you give me a
> kernel.org address, I know you have access to kernel.org, and that
> makes me believe you are you. When you give me a github address, that
> doesn't really mean anything.
>
>
Well, these days access to kernel.org proves a lot less than it used to,
unfortunately.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5
2011-09-07 4:06 ` Avi Kivity
@ 2011-09-13 1:37 ` Arnaud Lacombe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arnaud Lacombe @ 2011-09-13 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, KVM list, Marcelo Tosatti, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 02:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Linus, please pull from
>> >
>> > git://github.com/avikivity/kvm.git kvm-updates/3.1
>> >
>> > to receive a fix for a build failure due to a missing instruction size
>> > suffix in inline assembly.
>>
>> Again, please give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that this is really
>> Avi, and the right thing to do, rather than just a "please pull from
>> this random tree".
>
> Yup, it's the genuine thing here, and the s/mul/mulq/ is not an incredibly
> clever backdoor.
>
>> It's not that I don't think you are you, but I want people to actually
>> *think* about what they are doing and sending me. When you give me a
>> kernel.org address, I know you have access to kernel.org, and that
>> makes me believe you are you. When you give me a github address, that
>> doesn't really mean anything.
>>
>
> Well, these days access to kernel.org proves a lot less than it used to,
> unfortunately.
>
How comes that companies who directly participate in the kernel
development[0] cannot setup servers that would host trees of their
employee ? In which case, kernel.org would just be a mirror for those
tree.
Thanks,
- Arnaud
[0]: from the top of my mind, RedHat, SuSe/Novell, Canonical, IBM, Intel, ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-13 1:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-05 9:42 [GIT PULL] KVM fix for 3.1-rc5 Avi Kivity
2011-09-06 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-07 1:19 ` Josh Boyer
2011-09-07 1:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-07 4:06 ` Avi Kivity
2011-09-13 1:37 ` Arnaud Lacombe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).