linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] tracing/probe: Check maxactive error cases

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:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:43:20 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        namhyung@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] tracing/probe: Check maxactive error cases

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:51:56 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:37:39 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > So now 'p1:..." will error out and not just be ignored?  
> > 
> > Yes, I think it is better to tell user "your command has a
> > meaningless option, maybe you made a mistake" than ignore that.
> > 
> 
> OK, just making sure. Hope nobody complains about it ;-)
> 
> Are these OK to add for the next merge window, or do you want them in
> now? I could probably get them ready for -rc1.

Yes, I think [1/7] to [3/7] would be better to go to 5.1.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>