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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 12:59:24 +0300
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	andrew.zamansky@...oton.com, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: Factor out common startup code

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:53:04AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:15:57AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:25:47PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > Provide some flags in tpm_class_ops to allow drivers to opt-in to the
> > > common startup sequence. This is the sequence used by tpm_tis and
> > > tpm_crb.
> > > 
> > > All drivers should set this flag.
> > 
> > The commit message should be a much much more verbose I cannot include
> > this without a better explanation. Please update this for the next
> > revision.
> 
> What more description do you want to see?

It is lacking a lot of relevant information:

* It should explain what you mean by startup sequence".
* It should describe the constant TPM_OPS_AUTO_STARTUP
* It should explain what drivers are doing at the moment (before
  this feature).
* It should explain what is the benefit for different HW drivers
  after applying this patch.
* It should explain why you call the executed sequence "automatic"
  and also use the word "standard". Yeah, I didn't understand this,
  this not me being picky. Maybe it should be DEFAULT_STARTUP??

Your commit message is as good as no commit message at all. I only got
picture what the patch does by reading the code.  I see the commit
message as or sometimes more important than the code change itself.

/Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ