linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:12:19 +0100
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle
 issues

Frank,

here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this
patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the
status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just
been forgotten...

> > So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your
> > concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked
> 
> Then you should have stated that there were concerns raised in the
> discussion and asked me if my concerns were addressed.

From my perspective, I have done that:

I marked the patch as RFC. I put you on the CC list. I asked about the
possibility of applying it. It was not very elaborate, but hey, this is
just a simple debugging patch :)

I totally would have accepted a high level "No, that won't fly
because...". Or a high level "This and that would need a change". Or
something like that. I intentionally sent this out as RFC because I know
there is some testing missing. I wanted to know if it is worth taking
further steps with this patch.

So, I simply wanted to know if you (still) have fundamental issues with
the patch? That needs to be discussed first before we go into coding
details. I think it is fine to not apply it if there are reasons. I'd
like to know them, however, for a better understanding.

For me, this is a super-super-side project, so if it causes too much
hazzle, I just leave it here and know interested people can find it
easier now. But if it could be applied with a sane amount of effort, I
was offering that.

Was that understandable?

Kind regards,

   Wolfram

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)