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: <6da7e6dc-b181-d26c-9f09-6592469193be@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:15:27 +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

> Because I didn't see any test result from you,

This is correct so far.

> so I can't trust you.

This view did not hinder you to integrate some of my update suggestions
which you found easier to handle.

>> Which test configurations would you trust finally?
> 
> Do test whatever like the users do.

I find such an information too unsafe for an official acceptance test.

>> How can such descriptions improve the trust situation?
> 
> It's the first step.  At least then I can see you did some test.
> Currently nothing.  zero.  nada.

I am unsure if acceptable test results will ever be published for this
software module.

> How can I trust it?

* Would you dare to inspect the shown source code adjustments again?

* How do you think about to sort the remaining update candidates
  by their change size (or software age)?

Regards,
Markus