linux-kernel - Re: [ patch 00/21 ] support multiple, pending ddebugs at kernel-boot

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]

Message-ID: <CAO+b5-oEgoCNsKoZOLQTBnb9UiS=iAawjVbJkd06+qjEr23vYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:16:55 +0200
From:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:	Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>
Cc:	jbaron@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com,
	gregkh@...e.de, gnb@...h.org
Subject: Re: [ patch 00/21 ] support multiple, pending ddebugs at kernel-boot

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>> The above example contradicts the following code added in patch 09/21:
>>
>>        /* actually go and implement the change */
>>        nfound = ddebug_change(&query, flags, mask);
>> +
>> +       pr_info("nfound %d on %s\n", nfound, show_ddebug_query(&query));
>> +       if (!nfound)
>> +               return ddebug_save_pending(&query, flags, mask);
>> +
>>        return 0;
>
> In patch 13, that becomes
>
> +       if (!nfound) {
> +               if (flags & _DPRINTK_FLAGS_APPEND)
> +                       return ddebug_save_pending(&query, flags, mask);
> +               else
> +                       pr_warn("no match on: %s\n",
> +                               show_ddebug_query(&query));
> +       }
>        return 0;
>  }
>
>
> its altered once more, when I add filter-flags,
> but that doesn’t really change my assertion.
>
>        nfound = ddebug_change(&query, flags, mask, filter);
>        if (!nfound) {
> -               if (flags & _DPRINTK_FLAGS_APPEND)
> +               if (flags & _DPRINTK_FLAGS_APPEND ||
> +                       filter & _DPRINTK_FLAGS_APPEND)
>                        rc = ddebug_save_pending(&query, flags, mask);
>

Sorry, but I'm not sure that addressing review comments by adding
follow-up patches that modify previous patches is the proper way to
present a patch series. IMHO this patch series would be a lot easier
to review if patches that modify previous patches in the same patch
series were avoided. If you are not yet familiar with patch squashing
via git rebase --interactive, I think it's a good idea to learn more
about it first.

Also, what are the implications for bisectability if review comments
about bugs are addressed by follow-up patches instead of modifying the
patches on which the comments apply ?

Thanks,

Bart.
--
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/