linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2.2 1/7] crypto: GnuPG based MPI lib

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: <CALLzPKZ70YWb45k+8Z6ApH5MuN7HwBBTWbLcu-UtRkFU07cwmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:20:33 +0200
From:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.2 1/7] crypto: GnuPG based MPI lib - source files (part 1)

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:51:30 +0300 Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Adds the multi-precision-integer maths library which was originally taken
>> from GnuPG and ported to the kernel by (among others) David Howells.
>> This version is taken from Fedora kernel 2.6.32-71.14.1.el6.
>> The difference is that checkpatch reported errors and warnings have been fixed.
>>
>> This library is used to implemenet RSA digital signature verification
>> used in IMA/EVM integrity protection subsystem.
>>
>> Due to patch size limitation, the patch is divided into 4 parts.
>
> I just noticed that this has been added to the "next" branch of the
> security tree (and thus into the next release of linux-next).  I think
> that these patches should be rearranged as in their current form, they
> break bisection (since the files in this patch reference include files in
> a latter patch).   We generally prefer large patches to be broken up into
> logical sub patches rather than just along file boundaries.
>
> In this case, even though it was broken up for review, it could have been
> committed as one large commit (assuming that there is no sensible way to
> break it up).

Hi,

It can be easily split into 2 commits and one of them would not comply
with mailing list limits.

James, should I do anything about it?

Thanks,

- Dmitry

> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
>
--
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/