linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security-testing tree with Linus' tree

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: <4BE34FA5.8070906@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 06 May 2010 16:24:21 -0700
From:	"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
CC:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security-testing tree with Linus'
 tree

On 05/06/2010 04:10 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010, David Howells wrote:
>
>>
>> Stephen Rothwell<sfr@...b.auug.org.au>  wrote:
>>
>>> I just used the version from Linus' tree.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>> However, I'd like to NAK some bits of c5b60b5e67af8be4c58d3ffcc36894f69c4fbdc1
>> now that I see it...
>
> Will a patch -R of below be correct enough for you?  Otherwise, please
> send me a new patch.
>
> (This is one of the reasons why I'm not so keen on whitespace fixes, also
> having to resolve merge conflicts, peturbing the history of the code etc.)
>
>
>>
>> 	@@ -1282,16 +1282,16 @@ long keyctl_session_to_parent(void)
>> 	
>> 	        /* the parent must have the same effective ownership and mustn't be
>> 	         * SUID/SGID */
>> 	-       if (pcred->  uid != mycred->euid ||
>> 	+       if (pcred->uid  != mycred->euid ||
>> 	            pcred->euid != mycred->euid ||
>> 	            pcred->suid != mycred->euid ||
>> 	-           pcred->  gid != mycred->egid ||
>> 	+           pcred->gid  != mycred->egid ||
>> 	            pcred->egid != mycred->egid ||
>> 	            pcred->sgid != mycred->egid)
>> 	                goto not_permitted;
>> 	
>> 	        /* the keyrings must have the same UID */
>> 	-       if (pcred ->tgcred->session_keyring->uid != mycred->euid ||
>> 	+       if (pcred->tgcred->session_keyring->uid != mycred->euid ||
>> 	            mycred->tgcred->session_keyring->uid != mycred->euid)
>> 	                goto not_permitted;
>>
>> _Please_ don't do either of these.  The whole point is to line stuff up so
>> that as the eye scans down the lines, it can easily pick out the differences
>> in stuff that's otherwise greatly repetitive.
>>
>> David
>>
>

I never would of thought this. So the != has to be lined
up so things don't break?!

Justin P. Mattock
--
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/