linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] Fix memory freeing issues

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]

Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:58:02 +0200
From:	Vitalii Demianets <vitas@...factor.kiev.ua>
To:	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Cong Ding <dinggnu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] Fix memory freeing issues

On Saturday 15 December 2012 19:25:40 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:33:50AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > Hans, why do you want to put in this patch, which is dealing with
> > memory-freeing issues only, completely unrelated functional changes?
>
> Because during review of your patch we happened to find another issue
> a few lines up and down. Why not fix it on the way?
>

Because my heart is not with your solution of irq-related problem. I can't do 
it.

> If you like, make it two patches, one with your memory-freeing issue
> and one "Remove irq tracking" or something like that.

I've done exactly that. The series of two patches. First [patch 1/2] - deals 
exclusively with memory freeing issues and you have no objections to it. 
Second [patch 2/2] which we disagreed upon - deals with irq-related issues.

> That's just 
> three or four lines difference, I'd even accept it if it were only
> one patch.
>
> I don't want to fix one thing now and leave the other one unresolved.
> That would just be a waste of time.

Me too. But we have different vision of the solution to the irq-related issue. 
That's why I won't write the irq-related part.
Also, I don't understand, why do you want two unrelated fixes in one patch? 
When they are separated, they are easier to discuss, study and revert if 
needed.

>
> To be clear, I have no objections regarding your memory freeing ideas.

So, why not to stop here and accept this one patch? I won't write the 
irq-related part anyway, as my heart is with the solution in [patch 2/2] and 
you disagree with it.
So, the irq-related part should be done by someone else. Maybe by you, why 
not?
--
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/