linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] replace timeconst bc script with an sh script

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190620084550.GC28346@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:45:51 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Ethan Sommer <e5ten.arch@...il.com>
Cc:     hpa@...or.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] replace timeconst bc script with an sh script

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:29:19AM -0400, Ethan Sommer wrote:
> Ah sorry about that, I accidentally replied to Kieran only instead of to
> all, my response was "I will upload a patch with those issues fixed
> shortly, in terms of the dependency as far as I know commands only required
> for running tests don't count as kernel compilation dependencies, and I
> don't see any other uses of bc except for Documentation/EDID/Makefile, so I
> believe that bc can be removed from the kernel compilation section of the
> process document and will include that change with the updated patch that
> fixes the 2 issues you pointed out."

Sounds like parts of it should be in your commit message as a
justification *why* you're doing it. You can do that for your next
revision once you've waited a couple of days to gather feedback.

Also, please do not top-post.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)