linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen-pciback: Fix error return in bar_write() and rom

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:   Mon, 03 Dec 2018 03:55:03 -0700
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     "Marek Marczykowski" <marmarek@...isiblethingslab.com>
Cc:     "Dwayne Litzenberger" <dlitz@...tz.net>,
        "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        "xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen-pciback: Fix error return in
 bar_write() and rom_write()

>>> On 02.12.18 at 18:47, <marmarek@...isiblethingslab.com> wrote:
> From: Dwayne Litzenberger <dlitz@...tz.net>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dwayne Litzenberger <dlitz@...tz.net>

At least in the kernel world I think your own SOB is expected here.

Also the description would better be non-empty, explaining under
what conditions failure was observed (and wrongly ignored), or
whether instead the change is solely "just in case".

Some stylistic adjustments would also seem on order, but since
I'm not entirely certain about the kernel policy in this regard I'll
omit respective remarks.

Jan