linux-kernel - Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three 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: <a1cd0902-c8bb-9813-8d0c-d394975ef745@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:01:47 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

>>> Give the test result before speaking too much.
>>
>> Which concrete data do you expect here?
> 
> Depends on the result.

How can this vary?


> The bottom line is that you run your patched kernel on the real hardware

Which test configurations would you trust finally?


> or equivalent (VM or emulation) for the device you touched.

Can all the devices for which I dared to adjust their source code a bit
tested in desired ways within virtual machines?


> Run your patched kernel and the driver code on the real machine with
> the corresponding device.  Show the device is running.  That's the
> very first step.  Then follow the more detailed tests, but it depends
> on the subsystem.

How can such descriptions improve the trust situation?

Regards,
Markus