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: <20171018171309.f7idf76ccvofpnpk@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:13:09 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        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 Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:09:48AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 18:10 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:57:13AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 11:25 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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.
> > >  These don't actually even change the assembly, so there's
> > > programmatic
> > > proof they're not fixing anything.
> > > 
> > > Bug means potentially user visible fault.  In any bug fix commit
> > > you
> > > should document the fault and its effects on users so those
> > > backporting
> > > can decide if they care or not.
> > > 
> > > James
> > 
> > OK, I'll adjust my definition of a bug :-)
> 
> Subsystems are free to define bugs in any reasonable way.  However,
> there are two things to note here:
> 
>    1. The style guide is just that, a guide; it's not hard and fast rules.
>        That means that violations aren't bugs in the usual sense.
>        However, new code should mostly follow it and if it doesn't, there
>       should be a good reason to go against the guide which should be
>       explained in the change log.
>    2. The coding style evolves, so older drivers usually don't conform.
>        Classifying coding style issues as bugs leads to tons of patches
>       "fixing" older drivers, some of which actually end up breaking the
>       drivers in subtle ways which take ages to be found (at least that's
>       what we've seen in SCSI).
> 
> James

Makes sense. Thanks for verbose explanation.

/Jarkko