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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <s5hvahupdwe.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:27:13 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        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

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:15:27 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> > 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.

The really trivial things are different.  Don't mix up things.

> >> 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.

No-testing is the worst case.

> >> 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.

Then forget about your patches.

> > How can I trust it?
> 
> * Would you dare to inspect the shown source code adjustments again?

Not unless you give some testing results.

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

Irrelevant.


Takashi