On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 10:43 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of > > Hong Liu > > Sent: den 5 juni 2018 10:11 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] [PATCH] wpa-supplicant: fix the bug for > > PATCHTOOL = "patch" > > > > When switch PATCHTOOL to patch, applying 'key-replay-cve- > > multiple.patch' failed: > > > > checking file src/ap/ieee802_11.c > > checking file src/ap/wpa_auth.c > > checking file src/ap/wpa_auth.h > > checking file src/ap/wpa_auth_ft.c > > checking file src/ap/wpa_auth_i.h > > checking file src/common/wpa_common.h > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa.c > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa_i.h > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa.c > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 709. > > Hunk #2 FAILED at 757. > > Hunk #3 succeeded at 840 (offset -12 lines). > > Hunk #4 FAILED at 868. > > Hunk #5 FAILED at 900. > > Hunk #6 FAILED at 924. > > Hunk #7 succeeded at 1536 (offset -38 lines). > > Hunk #8 FAILED at 2386. > > Hunk #9 FAILED at 2920. > > Hunk #10 succeeded at 2940 (offset -46 lines). > > Hunk #11 FAILED at 2998. > > 8 out of 11 hunks FAILED > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa_i.h > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 32. > > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED > > checking file src/common/wpa_common.h > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 215 with fuzz 1. > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa.c > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa_i.h > > checking file src/ap/wpa_auth.c > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 1898 (offset -3 lines). > > Hunk #2 succeeded at 2470 (offset -3 lines). > > checking file src/rsn_supp/tdls.c > > checking file wpa_supplicant/wnm_sta.c > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa.c > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 2378 (offset -62 lines). > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa_ft.c > > checking file src/rsn_supp/wpa_i.h > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 123 (offset -5 lines). > > > > So split the wpa-supplicant/key-replay-cve-multiple to 8 patches. > > Why does it need to be split into eight separate patches? Isn't it > just a case of having to regenerate the patch so that the hunk > contexts match the current code?
You're technically right but I think separate patches may be a lot clearer... Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
