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  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:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:16:53 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/bpf: Fix 64-bit JIT frame pointer usage

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:27 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:02:36PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:54 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > The previous patch you posted has my patch description, push/pop and
> > > comment changes, with no credit:
> > >
> > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190614210555.q4ictql3tzzjio4r@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com
> >
> > I'm sorry for reusing one sentence from your commit log and
> > not realizing you want credit for that.
> > Will not happen again.
>
> Um.  What are you talking about?  The entire patch was clearly derived
> from mine.  Not just "one sentence from your commit log".  The title,
> the pushes/pops in the prologue/epilogue, the removal of the
> "ebpf_from_cbpf" argument, the code spacing, and some of the non trivial
> comment changes were the same.
>
> > I also suggest you never touch anything bpf related.
> > Just to avoid this credit claims and threads like this one.
>
> Wth.  I made a simple request for credit.  Anybody can see the patch was
> derived from mine.  It's not like I really care.  It's just basic human
> decency.

derived? do you really think so ?
Please fix your orc stuff that is still broken.
Human decency is fixing stuff that you're responsible for.
Your commit d15d356887e7 on April 23 broke stack traces.
And we reported it 3 weeks ago.
Yet instead of fixing it you kept arguing about JIT frame pointers
that is orthogonal issue and was in this state for the last 2 years.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists