linux-kernel - Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:40:51 -0500
From:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To:	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>
Cc:	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

On 10/8/07, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:

Some minor rewording suggestions:

> + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> +     communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied with how the
> +     submitter has responded to my comments.
---

Replace the last sentence with "I am satisfied with the submitter's
response to my comments." or "The submitter has responded to my
comments in a way that satisfied my concerns."

---
> +
> + (c) While there may (or may not) be things which could be improved with
> +     this submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile
> +     modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would
> +     argue against its inclusion.
---

I would suggest dropping the "(or may not)" as unnecessary, and
changing the "which would" to "that would".

---
> +
> + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I can not
---

>From a legal standpoint, "I do not" might be preferable to "I cannot",
since it disclaims any intention to make such a statement, regardless
of qualification.

---
> +     (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
> +     that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
> +     given situation.
> +
> + (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
> +     public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
> +     tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
> +     indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or
> +     the open source license(s) involved.
---

(e) seems over-careful, especially since you're applying it only to
the Review-by tag, while all the other tags would also have the same
concern.



-- 
scott preece
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/