linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations

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: <20180221153527.12e7d12c@lwn.net>
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:35:27 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> >> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc
> >> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one
> >> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such
> >> a small part that it doesn't matter, though?  
> >
> > I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc
> > changes to something that would be altered by the following patch,
> > because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that
> > would have survived.
> >
> > If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these
> > changes in a following patch. Would that be ok?  
> 
> Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing
> docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion?

I would be inclined to agree.  Putting docs changes with the associated
code changes helps to document the patch itself, among other things.  I
wouldn't split them up.

jon