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: <20171018172209.dn3jwl3juzsvkn7c@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:22:09 +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,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        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>,
        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

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 08:18:58PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:43:10PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Commit message should just describe in plain text what you are doing
> > 
> > Did other contributors find the wording “Replace …”
> > 
> > 
> > > and why.
> > 
> > and “… a bit safer according to the Linux coding style convention.”
> > sufficient often enough already?
> > 
> > Which description would you find more appropriate for this change pattern?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Markus
> 
> For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Remove sentence
> about Coccinelle. That's all.
> 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value.
> 4/4: this a good commit message. Requires a Tested-by before can be
> accepted, which I'm not able to give.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> /Jarkko

One more word of advice: send the three as separate patches. My guess is
that it takes a factor longer time to apply 4/4 than other patches
because there's more limited crowd who can test it.