linux-kernel - Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata

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: <5e87f691-edb9-0a12-ff7a-59854c2ca2f8@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:15:32 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata_cleared()

>>> Don't introduce a defect in patch 1 and correct
>>> that introduced defect in patch 2.
>> Which detail do you not like here?
> 
> See above.

This feedback is not clearer.

I find that the two update steps should work in principle,
shouldn't they?

I guess that we have got different preferences for the shown
patch granularity. Another update variant can follow a bit later
with the changes squashed together.

Regards,
Markus