linux-kernel - Re: [patch] nvme-fabrics: correct some printk information

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: <20161210202411.GZ8176@mwanda>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:24:11 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] nvme-fabrics: correct some printk information

For my check, most of the results fall into three categories.

1) False positives (40% of results)
2) Badly designed interfaces that take a pointer to a pointer for no
   reason and can be cleaned up. (5%)
3) Bugs where we modified the code, but haven't tested it.  Most of the
   time passing the wrong pointer will be detected right away during
   testing so it's not like this is a super common type of bug. (55%)

I haven't pushed the check because 40% false positives is probably
enough to make people complain.

regards,
dan carpenter