linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: watchdog: Validate optional file argument

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: <73bab70b-e22c-42b4-cfca-b4e33431b423@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:25:31 -0600
From:   shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
To:     Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>
Cc:     "George G. Davis" <george_davis@...tor.com>,
        Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@...il.com>,
        Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: watchdog: Validate optional file argument

On 9/17/19 8:54 AM, Eugeniu Rosca wrote:
> Shuah,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:19:35PM -0600, shuah wrote:
>> On 9/16/19 12:49 PM, George G. Davis wrote:
>>> As reported by Eugeniu Rosca, a side of affect of commit c3f2490d6e92
>>> ("selftests: watchdog: Add optional file argument") is that arbitrary files
>>> may be opened for watchdog testing, e.g.
>>>
>>
>> You don't need to say this here since you are already have a
>> Reported-by tag.
> 
> This looks like asking people to stick to your personal taste which
> BTW doesn't really match the patterns established in Linux community.
> 
> With a bit of scripting, I am able to find around 4600 vanilla commits
> which happen to mention the name of the reporter in addition to
> Reported-by: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/wNXfdGCJbX/ .
> 
> I really don't care if my name is mentioned once or twice, but I do
> believe that requesting a new patch revision just based on this criteria
> is nonsense. Can you please revise your review criteria?

I already said what I want. I want two patches and the first one with
Fixes tag. The reason for that is that the first patch fixes a problem
in patch that is already in my tree which is fixes a problem.

I am going to mark the patch for stables and the first patch in this
series.

I would like the commit log written clearly. Having a clear commit log
is a critical review comment. It is important for any change to have
clear commit logs for clarity and maintainability.

So please send me two patches one with Fixes tag and second that has
the -i support.

thanks,
-- Shuah