linux-kernel - Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:14:10 +0300
From:   Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@...il.com>
To:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@...il.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>


On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> > Hello Greg,
> >
> > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end
> > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk.
> >
> > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some
> > feedback from yourself too.
> >
> > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to
> > at the moment, so there is no rush.
> >
> > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience.
>
> Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then
> fixed it up at the end, right?
>
> All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every
> step of the way.
>
> Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model
> works.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h


Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel
development model works.

Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking?

(1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy
the kernel development model requirements;
(2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code
implemented as shell functions;

While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go
ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell
implementation over the awk one.

Thanks.

Alexander Kapshuk.