linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] block: sed-opal: support shadow MBR done flag and write

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: <20190205065742.GB1868@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 22:57:42 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     David Kozub <zub@...ux.fjfi.cvut.cz>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
        Scott Bauer <sbauer@...donthack.me>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonas Rabenstein <jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlangen.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] block: sed-opal: support shadow MBR done flag
 and write

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:06:54AM +0100, David Kozub wrote:
> This will unfortunately trigger some changes (conflict resolving - e.g. if I
> move the last two patches in the current series forward, in front of the
> patches with new functionality). What is the proper procedure w.r.t.
> Reviewed-by tags which were already given? Common sense would make me keep
> them for trivial changes and remove them if the patch should be re-reviewed.
> Is that correct?

I don't think there is a general rule.  As long as the change is trivial
I keep them personally, otherwise I drop them.

E.g. if you just remove a few hunk because of new code that isn't
present now I'd keep them, if there are more complex changes to the code
flow I would consider dropping them.

> FWIW I also hacked together a tool to cover my usecase:
> https://gitlab.com/zub2/opalctl
> 
> The selling point is that it can handle passwords the same way that sedutil
> (https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil) does.

That actually is pretty nice, as it allows people to migrate over
(not that I've heard of a whole lot of usage of sedutil, but being
compatible to some extent is always nice)