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]

Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:46:17 +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 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:30:24 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> There is a general source code transformation pattern involved.
> >> So I find that it is systematic.
> >>
> >> But I did not dare to develop a script variant for the semantic patch
> >> language (Coccinelle software) which can handle all special use cases
> >> as a few of them are already demonstrated in this tiny patch series.
> > 
> > Then you're doing everything by hands,
> 
> I am navigating through possible changes around the pattern
> “Use common error handling code” mostly manually so far.
> 
> 
> > and can be wrong
> 
> Such a possibility remains as usual.

"As usual" doesn't suffice.  It must be "almost perfect" for such a
code refactoring.  The damage by a overseen mistake is much higher
than the merit by such a patch.

If the patch is about fixing a bug, it's a different story.
Or it's about a really trivial change (e.g. your sizeof() conversion
patches), I can check and apply easily.  But for other changes with
more lines, it makes little sense.  Again, the risk of breakage
increases while the merit is negligible.

> > -- that's the heart of the problem.
> 
> There might be related opportunities for further improvements.
> Do you trust adjustments from an evolving tool more than
> my concrete contributions?

Yes, loudly.


I stop at this point, as the rest is simply a repeat from the previous
mail.


thanks,

Takashi