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
| ||
|
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