linux-kernel - Re: [0/8] target-iSCSI: Adjustments for several 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:19:28 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     David Disseldorp <ddiss@...e.de>, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arun Easi <arun.easi@...ium.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Jiang Yi <jiangyilism@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Tang Wenji <tang.wenji@....com.cn>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Varun Prakash <varun@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: [0/8] target-iSCSI: Adjustments for several function
 implementations

> You're 1/8 patch had an actual bug fix hidden amongst the style churn.

It showed the general possibility to adjust the source code structure
for the function “chap_server_compute_md5” also because of the usage
of the single jump label “out” before.


> I don't see any such fixes in the other patches.

This view is appropriate.

Further update steps show different transformation possibilities.


> My opinion from https://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg16342.html
> hasn't changed. FWIW, I'd prefer to see LIO adopt a policy similar to:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Developer%27s_FAQ#How_not_to_start

It seems that you express a few aspects for general change resistance.
Will the circumstances evolve for similar software improvements?

Regards,
Markus