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  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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:38:43 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <>
To:     Dan Carpenter <>
cc:     Markus Elfring <>,
        Wen Yang <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Gilles Muller <>,
        Michal Marek <>,
        Nicolas Palix <>,
        Yi Wang <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: put_device: reduce false positives

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:06:54PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >
> > > > Don't complain about a return when this function returns "&pdev->dev".
> > >
> > > Would this information qualify to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
> >
> > Fixes tags relate to stable kernels, so that one can see which stable
> > kernels a particular patch should be propagated to.  There is no need to
> > propagate patches on semantic patches to stable kernels.  People who run
> > stable kernels are interested in their behavior, not the bug finding
> > rules that they contain.
> The Fixes tag is not just about stable...  For example, we use them for
> statistics to see how quickly bugs get fixed etc.

OK.  But still do we need fixes tags for bug finding rules?  Perhaps if
the previous version was really broken, and it would be really undesirable
to use it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists