linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix HYPERVISOR_update

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49B923E9.6020603@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:02:01 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix HYPERVISOR_update_descriptor()

Jan Beulich wrote:
>> See:
>>
>>  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/28/67 
> 
> Thanks. Would certainly be helpful to put into Documentation/ if this is
> meant to be more than just a personal requirement of yours.

It's something we started with in the x86 tree (it came out of a long
discussion Ingo and I had about how to filter patches.)  It's not like
we can impose this workflow on others, but it has been *way* useful: a
patch with a *meaningful* "Impact:" line typically needs less than a
third of the human time than one without -- simply because it forces the
submitter to think about it.

Similarly "Fix foo" is not a complete description in any way.  Why was
foo broken in the first place?

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/