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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:41:52 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, wanghaifine@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...el.com>, Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change judgment len position On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 03:20 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:16:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 09:11 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > CC Philip and LKP team. > > > > Please try to make your first patch in drivers/staging > > > > to get familiar with submitting patches to the kernel. > > > > https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch > > > > > > > > Maybe there's utility in creating a filtering and auto-reply > > > > tool for first time patch submitters for all the vger mailing > > > > lists using some combination of previously known submitters > > > > and the 0-day robot to point those first time submitters of > > > > defective patches to kernelnewbies and staging. > > > > > > Yeah good idea. That feature can be broken into 2 parts: > > > > > > - an email script, which could be added to Linux scripts/ dir > > > - maintain records for telling whether someone is first-time patch submitters > > > > Maybe run checkpatch on those first-time submitter patches too. > > OK, now I'm certain that you are trolling... Nope, the process suggestions above are sincere. > Joe, what really pisses me off is that it's actually at the expense of original > poster (who had nothing to do with the CoCup) CoCup? No doubt pronounced cock-up. > *and* an invitation for a certain > variety of kooks. In probably vain hope of heading that off, here's the > summary of what happened _before_ Joe started to stir the shit: > > * code in question is, indeed, (slightly) bogus in mainline. > It reads as "reject negative values for length, truncate positive ones to 4", > but in reality it's "treat everything outside of 0..4 as 4". It's not broken > per se, but it's certainly misleading. > * one possible fix would be to drop the "reject negative values" > completely, another - to move checking for negatives before the truncation. > Patch tried to do the latter. Umm, I suggested an appropriate mechanism to fix the patch in this thread immediately after reading it. > Code of Conduct is garbage, but neither Dave nor the author > of this patch had anything to do with that mess. If you want to make a point, > do so without shit splatter hitting innocent bystanders - people tend to > get very annoyed by that kind of thing, and with a damn good reason. The Code of Conduct, if it exists at all, should apply to all of the kernel. And no, as I have previously posted, I don't agree with it nor the method that was used to introduce it. But it does exist. Its splatter affects us all.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists