linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/3] move visorbus out of staging to drivers/virt/visorbus

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]

Date:   Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:20:17 +0000
From:   "Kershner, David A" <David.Kershner@...sys.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "jes.sorensen@...il.com" <jes.sorensen@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org" 
        <driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        *S-Par-Maintainer <SParMaintainer@...sys.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/3] move visorbus out of staging to drivers/virt/visorbus



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@...uxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:06 AM
> To: Kershner, David A <David.Kershner@...sys.com>
> Cc: corbet@....net; tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...nel.org; akpm@...ux-
> foundation.org; jes.sorensen@...il.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org; *S-Par-
> Maintainer <SParMaintainer@...sys.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] move visorbus out of staging to
> drivers/virt/visorbus
> 
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:54:30PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:53:22PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 04:07:29PM -0400, David Kershner wrote:
> > > > > This patchset moves drivers/staging/unisys/include to
> > > > > include/linux/visorbus, and moves drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus to
> > > > > drivers/virt/visorbus.
> > > >
> > > > Um, are you thinking it is ready to be moved?  Have you asked for
> > > > another review?
> > > >

Thank you for taking a quick look at our patch series. Part of the motivation
behind this submission was, in fact, to initiate another code review. What is
the formal procedure for initiating a code review?

> > > > In a totally random chance, I was doing some driver core work today
> and
> > > > I noticed that in drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorbus_main.c, you
> > > > have 2 tabs for your 'struct attribute' variables, which is really odd.
> > > >

Sorry I missed that; I guess my eyes glazed over by the time I got to that file,
and I was expecting checkpatch to catch that. Now I know better, and I will be
looking for more things. Thanks for catching.

> > > > Also, you should be using the ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS() macro for them
> instead
> > > > of having to "open code" the struct attribute_group lists.
> > > >
> > > > So either you all have horrible luck in that I just happened to find the
> > > > only remaining problem, or that you should proabably ask for a good
> code
> > > > audit, I haven't looked at the code before today since the last round of
> > > > "fun" I found in just one other random file :)
> > >
> > > Also, many of the attribute callbacks in that file seem to all have
> > > their leading '{' in the wrong place.  Odd that checkpatch.pl doesn't
> > > catch that...
> > >
> > > partition_handle_show() is one such example that is obviously wrong.
> > >
> > > There's also one checkpatch.pl warning for it, which should probably be
> > > resolved as well.
> >
> > drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorbus_main.c:1035: WARNING: Prefer
> using '"%s...", __func__' to using 'create_bus_instance', this function's name,
> in a string
> >
> > to be specific, something you should have caught, right?
> >
> > Are you sure this is ready to be moved out of staging?  :(
> 
> Eek, I can't look away...
> 
> You do this a bunch:
> 	if (dev->visorchannel) {
> 		visorchannel_destroy(dev->visorchannel);
> 
> yet the first thing that visorchannel_destroy() does is check for null.
> So, no need to test this twice, right, only do so in the function, that
> will make your code flow a lot "smoother" where ever you are calling
> this.
> 
> Ok, I'll stop now, gotta go find some dinner...
> 

We will do some more internal reviews, and send out fixes for things
we find. I hope you enjoyed your dinner.

> greg k-h