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: <20171019121649.cl3ppzem2scdxthm@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:16:49 +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 07:48:06PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted.
> 
> Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps
> with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
> in tpm_…()”?
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/
> 
> I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information
> source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern.
> 
> 
> > Remove sentence about Coccinelle.
> 
> I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such
> a kind of attribution.
> 
> 
> > That's all.
> 
> I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved.
> 
> 
> > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value.
> 
> I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again.
> You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far.
> 
> 
> > 4/4: this a good commit message.
> 
> Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step
> “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”?
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> 
> 
> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give.
> 
> I am curious on how this detail will evolve.
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

I've given clear enough instructions what to do with the commits. This
is the point where I stop caring about this mail thread. Thank you.

/Jarkko