linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy structs for v5.4-rc2

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: <20191004195947.lkq5lkyj5zvlyxaw@wittgenstein>
Date:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:59:48 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy structs for v5.4-rc2

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 10:53:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:42 AM Christian Brauner
> <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> >
> >            The only separate fix we we had to apply
> > was for a warning by clang when building the tests for using the result of
> > an assignment as a condition without parantheses.

<snip>

> 
> I've pulled this, since it's not in core kernel code anyway, but I
> wish I had never had to see that ugly construct.

I admit that I'm _less_ anal about other people's code in _tests_ as for
example in this case.
For core kernel code I obviously would not have taken this into the
tree.
Honestly, my main concern currently is to get people to add tests at all
- at least if they want to go through my tree - and if they adhere to
that request I'm more lenient.

Christian