From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qk1-f179.google.com (mail-qk1-f179.google.com [209.85.222.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B7902FB3 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 19:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f179.google.com with SMTP id o3so1592168qke.7 for ; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:56:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DHbuLPQQvw0bevu74VA7SOSR2yjM4NDCg3ED1GQje4I=; b=B2B1sZMflOGCr2XbKqAAN7BfnHwwwbBzAFOCCDq3FYE00Dwk4JjvIWgzqZR4MQFgnB Ke/IN/2pRVsLPjyypKatKz+79vWSKC5xXfm6JIqNaYQqqpVM71kNwZSewnv7z3EjL0NW xHYLdnF/s4WnhUz8rh1AJUEk7nGBhz3z1NkME= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DHbuLPQQvw0bevu74VA7SOSR2yjM4NDCg3ED1GQje4I=; b=K02k0flWmcvv1IZt7fHtdmTlqbVbC6uFzflKcZvxXvlb7ZrmsAJwM+PkwhwCJMXcXx p7CNQxA3RJG97DlvFfHOWrMPedTvvXbQu17iMfBGXmKFAippY6poOgfJYTFJao1ZLehK 7u8UWv6wuwyCpmhnVzq7rf0Tb4hfqjJKnYBynIMmYxV2Tba+TnZNwvoHmTVxAW0eZ33B xdpfgAhFbYf0p0DLcvJVL9+BEoZzbfgpsVZ4z9tsW6acRUestoi3nBap9pLxB+I489Ug y/IP8b+W4m0uJddN09a0/za4UHcu6CkFf8du+mj3zcN/vrT+2Czw6SgbkTCZ31FqnhVC abqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531d/HEs/XfvroGsHgPKus7CeP8CqfrIpcG+DsCO5KOH0x9+h29b JUODuwVcvCA6Kud8cxL4FUVMfA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwo0suahk4Xcl5R2uuB6PjZvCktZ5koEQByVZQzmYsY+kd3biK2XyTb9mw4BuqoGCgCF0LeEQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1339:: with SMTP id p25mr39885535qkj.297.1622059004634; Wed, 26 May 2021 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nitro.local ([89.36.78.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g63sm2263392qkd.92.2021.05.26.12.56.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 May 2021 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 15:56:42 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org Subject: Re: b4 v0.7.0 is available Message-ID: <20210526195642.h4yzvykpopuckffz@nitro.local> References: <20210526192558.pex7tuorwqvkzxe3@nitro.local> <20210526194117.GF1096940@ziepe.ca> X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210526194117.GF1096940@ziepe.ca> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:41:17PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > It is very easy to start signing patches with patatt, so I invite everyone to > > test it out. If you are using git-send-email, you can automate the whole thing > > to happen behind the scenes via the sendemail-validate hook: > > https://pypi.org/project/patatt/#getting-started-as-contributor > > Any thoughts about connecting this to the patchwork instances? > > As I patchwork user I've been wondering if I should be switching to > fetch patches to apply via b4 instead via patchworks - would > appreciate some clarity :) The main difficulties with making it part of patchwork proper is mostly due to it breaking the end-to-end nature of attestation: if we change patchwork to perform the attestation check on the backend, we're back to trusting kernel.org infrastructure. That is specifically something we want to get away with. :) We already do use patchwork-style patch hashes in b4, so perhaps a better approach would be to closer integrate b4 with patchwork -- if simply on the level of: - list outstanding series in a patchwork project and retrieve them from lore - automatically recognize patches that got applied and set their remote state to "Accepted" I think this alone will help closer integrate the two workflows and avoid needing to perform the attestation check on inherently untrusted infrastructure. -K