linux-kernel - Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions

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: <0c0adf54-ecaa-0a46-d4d0-1cd9718de913@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:04:30 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions

>> Do you find my wording “This issue was detected by using the
>> Coccinelle software.” insufficient?
> 
> The question is not whether it is insufficient, but whether it is appropriate.

I am curious on how our corresponding discussion will evolve further.


> Detecting Coccinelle issues is one step.  The next step is deciding
> what to do with them.

Will the clarification achieve any more useful results?


> Up to now, these messages have been sent out as informational, not as patches.

I sent some update suggestions as patches also in this series (as usual).


> Before sending patches to change existing code, address the "problem"
> so that it doesn't continue to happen.

It might be very challenging to achieve such a goal.


> Only afterwards is it appropriate to discuss what to do with existing code.

I would prefer to get corresponding improvements in both areas in parallel
(if it is generally possible).

Regards,
Markus