linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] VERIFY_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS: Move to <linux/sysfs.h> where it belongs

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: <20141216001453.1808.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
Date:	15 Dec 2014 19:14:53 -0500
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	linux@...izon.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rdunlap@...radead.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] VERIFY_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS: Move to <linux/sysfs.h> where it belongs

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Please do *not* mix changes up like this.  Split this out into a
> separate patch, please (1 logical change per patch).

Um... I thought I was doing that.  More particularly, the task of
untangling header file dependencies eseemed sufficiently cohesive
that it could be considered one logical change.

It was one round of thinking and analysis about what declarations the
affected files depend on.

Although syntactically possible, given the small size of the change (I
deleted a total of 5 #includes, 2 from moduleparam.h and 3 from sysfs.h),
it didn't seem worth breaking it up further.

> And testing only
> on x86_64 is not "sure" when talking about header file pruning (but at
> least you did the "all" configs).

Well, the first round was reading and understanding the headers; the
compile was just to make sure.

The files I was messing with (moduleparam.h and sysfs.h) don't have a
lot of architecture-specificness within them.  The main danger is that
they're used in a zillion places and some caller might depend on the
over-inclusion.

I was rushing to get that to Andrew while the coversation was ongoing
(if you check the mail headers, only a few minutes separated the various
messages) so I was less cautious than usual, but given that a mistake
would result in a nice obvious compile error (with an almost as obvious
fix), it seemed worth the risk.

If my haste made me judge wrong, I apologize.  Was I very wrong, or just
a bit over the line?
--
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/