On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I went to do the Fedora 3.19-rc6 build this morning and it failed in >> our buildsystem with: >> >> + '[' '!' -f /builddir/build/SOURCES/patch-3.19-rc6.xz ']' >> + case "$patch" in >> + unxz >> + patch -p1 -F1 -s >> symbolic link target '../../../../../include/dt-bindings' is invalid >> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mWE3ZL (%prep) > > Ugh. I don't see anything we can do about this on the git side, and I > do kind of understand why 'patch' would be worried about '..' files. > In a perfect world, patch would parse the filename and see that it > stays within the directory structure of the project, but that is a > rather harder thing to do than just say "no dot-dot files". > > The short-term fix is likely to just use "git apply" instead of "patch". Well, that's one fix anyway. I just removed the hunk from the local copy of patch-3.19-rc6.xz and added the symlink manually. See why below. > The long-term fix? I dunno. I don't see us not using symlinks, and a > quick check says that every *single* symlink we have in the kernel > source tree is one that points to a different directory using ".." > format. And while I could imagine that "patch" ends up counting the > dot-dot entries and checking that it's all inside the same tree it is > patching, I could also easily see patch *not* doing that. So using > "git apply" _might_ end up being the long-term fix too. It could, but from a distro perspective that requires either doing 'untar linux-3.N.tar.xz; cd linux-3.N; git add .; git apply patch-3.N+1-rcX' , or just using a git tree to begin with, which then makes all of this unnecessary anyway. Creating a git repo from a tarball for each build is kind of silly. Some might say not just using a git tree to build from to begin with in 2015 is also kind of silly. Or did I miss a way that git-apply can take a git patch and apply it to a tree that isn't a git repo? > I suspect that if "patch" cannot apply even old-style kernel patches > due to the symlinks we have in the tree, and people end up having to > use "git apply" for them, I might end up starting to just use > rename-patches (ie using "git diff -M") for the kernel. I'm kind of wondering why we'd generate patches at all if you have to apply them to a git repo, but maybe people like doing things the old-fashioned way just for the hell of it. > I've considered that for a while already, because "patch" _does_ kind > of understand them these days, although I think it gets the > cross-rename case wrong because it fundamentally works on a > file-by-file basis. But if "patch" just ends up not working at all, > the argument for trying to maintain backwards compatibility gets > really weak. Yeah. I mostly wanted to give people a heads up on the issue. I'm sure it's going to impact more than just the kernel. I think for us it's mostly limited to the -rcX patches, because once the tarball for the final release is out the symlink should be created by tar just fine. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html