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: <20171018150436.j2uhzxsu4ebjoz3c@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:04:36 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        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

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:44:18PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > A minor complaint: all commits are missing "Fixes:" tag.
> 
> * Do you require it to be added to the commit messages?

I don't require it. It's part of the development process:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.12/process/submitting-patches.html

> * Would you like to get a finer patch granularity then?

I don't understand what you are asking.

> * Do you find any more information missing?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

I think I already answered to this in my earlier responses (commit
messages).

I probably won't take "sizeof(*foo)" type of change even if it
is a recommended style if that is the only useful thing that the
commit does.

/Jarkko