linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] backports: prefix c-file / h-file auto backport with BPAUTO

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: <1415175123.2589.10.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:12:03 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	backports@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yann.morin.1998@...e.fr, mmarek@...e.cz, sassmann@...nic.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] backports: prefix c-file / h-file auto
 backport with BPAUTO

On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 09:02 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> > But the *code* changes
> > you're making here that check whether bp_prefix is being duplicated
> > aren't necessary for that, and are in fact confusing and dangerous.
> 
> Understood, thanks for the review, hopefully this is addressed with the
> latest series.

Actually, maybe you wanted these changes because you didn't want to end
up with CONFIG_BACKPORT_BPAUTO_ for integration? I think that's a small
price to pay though for code complexity trade-off, IMHO you should
accept CONFIG_BACKPORT_BPAUTO_ and remove the code changes.

johannes

--
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/