From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1C723858D28; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:30:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B1C723858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org B1C723858D28 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=45.83.234.184 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713713455; cv=none; b=tE5nJuzzb6VxIQ2sPyF9Lpq4n+V9oBpvNwDpMTkMV6/DI6tKYUn7+6FIth0XuOvDVQQ5jAtlzDAdKv+m6ei8DI0Or4JPTCajJcY8VG6MTIIA5Paf92E2WvkniolthGhtq90xlyR/96lZ4wGqWaaqbo7vVWjVm4l+jLI0TXayiwM= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713713455; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y5RmTkwFs+WTobWNYopzU5CAJtdaHMdGIS6OHwmarzg=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=aObqvUBL4QMWGEPRONLTTBxRrwDsrrZ+x3OfL7ArNEp9Q6ujUCqhdAm/CqmEx3gZX1NCyP3/iLP4b/Q/CQ7ezlWB4V7ecDmP4EXMj1zADSOXg8z6bWLknH/AoUgyl64C85Y3dRF2eYVVYDm743qCwo0gYpE5XWdPsYImzPaRlOQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A555F3000587; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:30:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:30:52 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: Joel Sherrill , Florian Weimer , Guinevere Larsen via Overseers , Sandra Loosemore , Guinevere Larsen , GCC , binutils , Eli Zaretskii via Gdb , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor Message-ID: <20240421153052.GA29957@gnu.wildebeest.org> References: <20240329203909.GS9427@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20240401150617.GF19478@gnu.wildebeest.org> <077b9dd5-0df1-4384-a9d1-58e4283caf09@redhat.com> <87il0ykgw5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Alejandro, On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:30:42PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > It would also be interesting to require showing range-diffs between > patch revisions. They make it much more difficult to introduce a > vulnerability after a reviewer has turned its mins into approving the > patch. Of course, the patch could go in if the submitter lies in the > range-diff and the vuln is undetected, but then it can be verified a > posteriory to prove that there was a lie. Could you give an example of using git range-diff? How do you go from v1 of a patch (series) to a v2? Normally when asked for changes to a patch (series) I do an git rebase -i (on the local branch I used to develop the feature/bug fix) and split/commit all requested changes and then sent the new patches with git send-email again. But I guess to use/combine that with git range-diffs I should start creating new local branches for each patch (series) in development? Thanks, Mark