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]
Date:   Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:20:52 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        tycho@...ho.ws, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] userns: Don't read extents twice in m_start

Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 06:08 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> I won't listen to checkpatch when it is wrong.
>
> Always a good idea.
>
> btw: what is checkpatch wrong about this time?

Well the way I was hearing the conversation was that there was a patch
that fixed a real bug, but it was wrong because checkpatch complained
about it.

So I don't even know if the warning is a problem.  But blocking bug
fixes because there is a warning certainly is.

If someone wants to change coding style in practice so that every
smp_rmb and every smp_wmb has detailed comments that everyone must
include they need to follow the usual rule and update the entire kernel
when making an interface change.  As that did not happen I don't see
any problems with incremental updates in the style the code is already
in.

Not that I will mind a patch that updates the code, but I am not going
to hold up a perfectly good bug fix waiting for one either.

Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists