linux-kernel - Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions

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 13:13:51 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory
 allocation in three functions

>> I am not going to “verify” your update suggestion by my evolving approaches
>> around the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) at the moment.
> 
> As you are sending patches as Markus Elfring

I am contributing also some update suggestions.

> I would expect you take Coccinelle's suggestion into account

The proposed change is based on a semantic patch script which I developed
with the support of other well-known Linux contributors.

> and actually try to understand code before sending patch.

I concentrated my understanding on the concrete transformation pattern
in this use case.

> That suggestion may lead to actual bug in code which your patch just leaves
> unnoticed as it is not apparent from the patch itself

There can be other change possibilities left over as usual.

> (no, not talking about this very patch it all started with)

Thanks for your distinction.

> That said, I'm considering Markus Elfring being a human.

Thanks for this view.

> If you do not like reactions to your patches

I am looking for constructive responses. - Disagreements can trigger
special communication challenges.

> or are interested only in improving tool that generates them,

How do you think about to look at any more background information?

https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/

> it would be better to just setup a "tip bot for Markus
> Elfring" and let it send patches automatically.

There is already an other automatic source code analysis system active.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle

> The way you are sending patches makes impression (at least to me),
> that you spent some time on fixing issue Coccinelle found

Yes. - This view is appropriate.

> and not just shut the warning up.

Additional improvement possibilities can be taken into account
after corresponding software development discussions, can't they?

Regards,
Markus