linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] char-TPM: Adjustments for ten function implementations

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: <5cf54c5a-778f-3f00-8772-547785c22009@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:32:16 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.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>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] char-TPM: Adjustments for ten function
 implementations

>>> Fixes is only for bug fixes.  These don't fix any bugs.
>>
>> How do you distinguish these in questionable source code
>> from other error categories or software weaknesses?
> 
> A style change is one that doesn't change the effect of the execution.

This can occasionally be fine, can't it?


>  These don't actually even change the assembly,

How did you check it?

I would expect that there are useful run time effects to consider
for three proposed update steps (in this patch series).


> so there's programmatic proof they're not fixing anything.

I find that the software refactoring “Improve a size determination in nine functions”
should fit to this observation (while the source code can become a bit better).


> Bug means potentially user visible fault.

Thanks for your constructive feedback.

Regards,
Markus