linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0254/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

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:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:20:07 -0500
From:	"Steve Wise" <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:	"'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"'Baole Ni'" <baolex.ni@...el.com>, <swise@...lsio.com>,
	<dledford@...hat.com>, <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	<hal.rosenstock@...il.com>, <airlied@...ux.ie>, <kgene@...nel.org>,
	<k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
	<bp@...en8.de>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
	<hch@...radead.org>, <matanb@...lanox.com>, <markb@...lanox.com>,
	<jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>, <dean.luick@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0254/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

> 
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:12:54AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
> > Acked-by: Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
> >
> 
> I have to ask, why did you ack all these? There's several things wrong with
> this patch series, but even the point of the patch is mistaken. It makes
> readable code much less readable. When you chmod a file, do you type
> 
>   chmod 0444 file
> 
> or do you write
> 
>   chmod S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH file
> 
> ?
> 
> Which of the above is easier to figure what is being changed?
>

I assumed this was some global "fix up".   
 
> Not to mention, because the subject is the same for all 1285 patches, and you
> deleted the content of the patch in your ack, there's no way to know what
> exactly this ack is for (I haven't received the original patch yet because
> it's probably being ratelimited by some mail server).
> 

I acked just the single patches that hit cxgb3/cxgb4.  But if this is really
garbage, then ignore my ACKs...

Steve.